Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (17 011 511)

Category : Education > School transport

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 17 Apr 2018

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There were failings in the way the Council considered an appeal for travel assistance to college. The Council has agreed to carry out a fresh appeal, make a payment to reimburse the complainant’s travel costs if the new appeal is successful and provide training to its panel members.

The complaint

  1. Mrs B complains that the Council unfairly discriminated against her daughter, S, who is 18 years old and blind, when it refused to provide assistance with travel to college.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have:
    • considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
    • considered the comments and documents the Council has provided following a colleague’s enquiries of the Council;
    • considered relevant policies, guidance and legislation; and
    • given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
  2. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Councils do not have a duty to provide free transport for young people of sixth form age in education or training. This means students aged 16 to 18. It also includes 19-year-olds if they are continuing on a course started before the age of 19. However, councils must publish an annual transport policy statement setting out the arrangements for the provision of transport that they consider necessary to help students of sixth form age to attend education or training. Arrangements for young people with learning difficulties or disabilities must be explicitly set out in the policy.
  2. The government has issued statutory guidance ‘Post-16 transport to education and training’ that councils must consider in deciding their policy. This says they must take account of various factors, including:
    • the needs of those who could not access education or training if no arrangements were made – they should consider the needs of the most vulnerable or socially excluded and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities;
    • the distance and journey time of the place of learning from the home – the statutory walking distance for children of compulsory school age can be used as a benchmark. Councils should consider the impact of a learning difficulty or disability on a young person’s ability to walk the distance, and the nature of the route. As with children of compulsory school age, young people should be able to reach their place of learning without undue stress.

Key events

  1. Mrs B’s daughter, S, is 18 years old and registered blind. S has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan which names the college she attends and states that she will need assistance with travel to college.
  2. Mrs B applied to the Council for travel assistance. The Council’s Transport Policy statement says that to be eligible for travel assistance, a learner must be:
    • aged 16-19 with a Statement of Special Needs or an Education Health and Care plan and attending a college or a special school in educational Year 12, 13, 14; and
    • attending their nearest college or school 6th form providing facilities and a study programme suitable to their needs, and
    • that school or college is beyond 3 miles from their home.
  3. Where a young person meets these eligibility criteria, transport will be provided for a charge of £370 per year. The Council has set this charge in line with the cost of an under 19 bus ticket. It says that the level of charging has been designed to ensure there is a level playing field between those who can travel independently and those who cannot.
  4. The Council refused Mrs B’s application for travel assistance because the college is 1.9 miles from her home; less than the statutory walking distance of 3 miles.
  5. Mrs B appealed the Council’s decision. She provided evidence to show that S could not travel to college independently.
  6. During the appeal, the panel asked Mrs B about the benefits S was receiving, the family income and their mobility vehicle. It noted that there were other ways to address Mrs B’s concerns about S’s travelling arrangements. It refused her appeal because it considered she had not made out a sufficiently strong case to show that it was necessary to grant S assistance with travel as an exception to its policy.
  7. Mrs B considers the Council was wrong to turn down her application on the distance criteria because while there may be a 1.9-mile safe walking route for a sighted person, it would not be safe for S.


  1. The Post-16 transport to education and training: Statutory guidance for local authorities says:

“Local authorities must consider distance in determining eligibility for support with transport.

The statutory walking distance of 3 miles to school (along the nearest available route) for those of compulsory school aged 8 and over is set out under section 444(5) of the Education Act 1996. This can be used as a benchmark by local authorities in defining the distance a young person might reasonably be expected to walk to access education or training.

In determining whether transport arrangements are necessary, local authorities will want to take into account other factors, such as the impact a learning difficulty or disability may have on a young person’s ability to walk this distance, and the nature (including safety) of the route, or alternative routes, which a young person could be expected to take.”

  1. I have considered the Council’s decision letters and the appeal panel’s notes. They do not include any consideration of how S’s disability would impact on her ability to walk 1.9 miles to college. This was fault. On the basis of the evidence provided by Mrs B, I consider it likely that the panel accepted that it would be unreasonable for S to walk to college.
  2. The Council decided that S should not receive travel assistance because she receives a Personal Independent Payment (PIP) which is used to fund a mobility car. This is unfair because the Council provides travel assistance to young people with an EHC plan who live more than 3 miles from the college, regardless of whether they are in receipt of a PIP, or whether they use it to fund a mobility car. The 3-mile limit in the Council’s policy is clearly based on the statutory walking distance. If it is accepted that it is unreasonable for S to walk 1.9 miles to college, I can see no justification for treating her application differently to applications from other young people who cannot walk to college because they live more than 3 miles away. The Council did not treat S’s application fairly. This was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. The Council will carry out a fresh appeal within eight weeks. If the Council upholds the appeal, it will also make a payment equivalent to £7.90 for each of the days S has attended college without travel assistance since the original appeal panel hearing in September 2017.
  2. Within eight weeks, and before any further appeals are heard, the Council will provide training to appeal panel members. The Council will ensure panel members are aware of the failings identified in this case to prevent similar failings in future.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page