City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 015 770)

Category : Education > School transport

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: the Council’s school transport appeals panel failed to properly consider Mrs B’s daughter’s appeal for travel assistance. The Council’s agreement to hold a further appeal with new panel members is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council unreasonably refused her application for transport assistance for her daughter when she had provided compelling medical evidence.

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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mrs B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
  2. 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
    • gave Mrs B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision; and
    • considered the Council’s comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

  1. The Council’s policy says travel assistance is available for children attending their nearest qualifying school if that school is beyond the statutory walking distance and no suitable arrangements have been made for boarding at or near the school or for them to attend a nearer qualifying school. The statutory distances are beyond two miles for children under eight and beyond three miles for children over eight. The Council’s policy provides for a review and then an appeal.

Background

  1. Mrs B’s daughter transferred to secondary school in September 2018. Mrs B’s daughter’s peer group attend the same school. Mrs B’s daughter’s school is not the nearest school to the family home. Mrs B chose that school for her daughter due to its special educational needs provision and because child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) had said it was important for her daughter to continue with her current peer group through her education.
  2. Mrs B applied for travel assistance to the school. The Council rejected the application because the school Mrs B’s daughter attends is not her nearest school. The Council upheld its decision when Mrs B requested a review.
  3. Mrs B requested an appeal. Mrs B said she had chosen her daughter’s school based on the superior special educational needs provision to suit her needs and on the advice of CAMHS to keep her with her primary school peer group. Mrs B said all her peer group went to the school her daughter now attended and therefore it was paramount she went there as it would have been detrimental to send her elsewhere. Mrs B included with her appeal a letter from CAMHS. That letter said it was important for Mrs B’s daughter to continue with her current peer group through her education to support her with reducing social anxiety and increasing her confidence with learning.
  4. An appeal panel considered Mrs B’s case. At that panel meeting Mrs B had an opportunity to put forward her reasons for sending her daughter to her chosen school. That referred to the special educational needs provision at the school and the recommendation from CAMHS. The Council also presented its case, referring to a different school being the nearest available school.
  5. The appeal panel members retired to consider the information they had received. Panel members noted Mrs B felt better sending her child to a school with her peers. Members also noted Mrs B had said she would still have sent her child to the current school even if there were no medical reasons. Panel members noted Mrs B knew about the Council’s policy on travel assistance when she chose her daughter’s school. One panel member asked about the advice from the CAMHS team. The response from another panel member was that the nearest school would also have support for Mrs B’s daughter’s needs. Panel recorded it had taken the medical information into consideration but did not consider it compelling enough to outweigh policy.
  6. The Council wrote to Mrs B to explain the panel’s decision. In that letter the Council told Mrs B panel had considered her reasons for applying for travel assistance. The letter referred to her daughter’s medical circumstances, that her daughter was under the supervision of CAMHS, that she had chosen a school based on her daughter’s medical needs and that in her view the current school was the closest school that provided for those needs. The letter referred to the medical supporting letters Mrs B provided and said panel had taken them into consideration. The letter told Mrs B panel was not persuaded she had a compelling reason to merit assistance. The letter said panel had taken into account the fact Mrs B knew about the Council’s policy when she selected a secondary school. The letter said panel had noted her daughter’s medical needs and medical information provided but did not consider it compelling enough to outweigh policy. The letter told Mrs B panel had expressed the view the alternative closer school would have support available to assist Mrs B’s daughter in her needs and therefore the responsibility for financing the school journey was Mrs B’s.

Analysis

  1. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mrs B’s application for free school transport at application stage. At that point Mrs B had not provided medical evidence to support the reasons why her daughter needed to attend a school which is not her nearest school. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for not awarding transport assistance at that point as it processed the application in line with its policy.
  2. I have concerns though with how the appeal panel considered Mrs B’s appeal. By that point Mrs B had provided more information in support of her appeal. In asking for an appeal Mrs B explained she had chosen her daughter’s school based partly on the superior special educational needs provision and partly on the advice of CAMHS. Mrs B provided a letter from CAMHS which said it was important for Mrs B’s daughter to continue with her current peer group through her education to support her with reducing social anxiety and increasing her confidence with learning. The Council says it was for the appeal panel to give whatever weight it considered necessary to the medical evidence. I agree. As I said in paragraph 2, the Ombudsman can only comment on the merits of a decision if there is evidence of fault in how that decision has been reached. So, if I were satisfied panel had properly considered the evidence provided by Mrs B I would have no grounds to criticise it for the decision reached. However, that is not the case here.
  3. I am not satisfied panel properly considered the information provided by CAMHS. It may well be the closest school has equally good special educational needs provision that would meet the needs of Mrs B’s daughter, which is the only issue panel referred to when discussing the medical information. However, CAMHS had said Mrs B’s daughter needed to continue with her current peer group through her education to support her. That peer group is only available in the school Mrs B’s daughter attends and was not available in the nearest school. As panel made no reference to that and did not record its view on why that was not a sufficiently compelling reason to outweigh policy I cannot say panel properly considered the matter. That is fault. I therefore recommended the Council hold a further appeal panel with new panel members, which it has agreed to do. I consider that an appropriate remedy.
  4. I made that suggestion to the Council when I first made enquiries on the complaint. The Council suggested it would be more appropriate for the application to be reassessed at the starting point, which I take to mean application stage. As I said in paragraph 12 though, there was no fault in the consideration of the application at that stage given Mrs B had not provided medical evidence. The fault lies with the appeal panel’s consideration and it is therefore more appropriate for the Council hold a further appeal.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council should arrange a new appeal panel with new panel members to consider Mrs B’s transport assistance appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

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.

Privacy settings