Summary: Mr V complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his child, W. Mr V did not submit any documentation to the Council to suggest W was at risk if transport was not provided. There is no evidence of Council fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr V, says the Council unreasonably refused his child, W, transport to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I considered the information submitted by Mr V with his complaint and I spoke to him on the telephone. I made enquiries of the Council and analysed its response. I also accessed its home to school travel and transport policy. I was also mindful of the Government’s statutory guidance on ‘Home to School travel and transport’ (2014). I sent Mr V and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took comments they made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

5. The statutory ‘Home to school travel and transport’ guidance says there is a statutory walking distance of under two miles (for children aged 8 and under) or under three miles (for children older than 8).
6. It goes on to say that where children have special educational needs, their need for school transport should be considered on an ‘individual basis’ even if they are within the statutory walking distance of a school.
7. The Council’s guidance says children with a ‘lack of awareness of common dangers and lack of age-appropriate independent skills’ might have free home to school transport. Its policy also refers to children ‘with severe learning difficulties who (are) unable to assess risk and adapt to everyday situations’. Often these needs would be written in a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, which is written to support children in schools.
8. As part of the process of looking at individual needs, a Council must consider if a child could reasonably be expected to walk to school if accompanied. The general expectation within the statutory guidance is that a child ‘will be accompanied by a parent if necessary’.
9. The statutory guidance sets out a two-stage appeal process with a senior officer reviewing the original decision not to grant transport assistance at Stage One. If complainants are unhappy they have the opportunity to go to an Independent Appeals Panel at Stage Two at which neither the original officer, or the reviewing officer, should present. After that stage, if they are still unhappy, complainants should be advised to go to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

What happened

10. Mr V applied for home to school transport for W. He said when W went to primary school, he had school transport provided but now he was going into secondary education, Mr V had to apply for transport for W. Mr V told the Council it was important that it provided transport given W had been diagnosed with severe autism and epilepsy and needed constant support. He said W had no sense of danger, was pre-verbal and did not understand simple instructions. Mr V’s sister, who had taken him to school, suffered a fall because W did not want to walk and tried to run away. W lived 1.1 miles away from his school.
11. The Council considered Mr V’s school transport application but did not consider W’s needs meant that it needed to provide school transport.
12. Mr V disagreed with the Council’s view and asked for an appeal at Stage One. Mr V provided a letter from a health professional but this only told the Council what W’s conditions were (just as W’s EHCP did). Mr V did not include information from a GP or other health professional to say W’s needs were so severe that transport had to be provided. Mr V argued that the Council had not considered W’s EHCP before making a decision. The Councillor who was responsible for reviewing decisions asked that W’s EHCP be assessed.
13. The Council disagreed that W’s needs meant he should have free home to school transport. Mr V went to Stage Two of the appeals process but did not provide any additional information for it to consider.
14. Mr V says the same officer considered his complaint at two stages.
15. Following Mr V’s unsuccessful appeals, the Council said he should go through its corporate complaints procedure.

What should have happened

16. When the Council first considered Mr V’s application, it should have considered W’s EHCP as part of the process. That way the Councillor would not have needed to refer the decision back to education to check W’s EHCP. As doing this, and providing this information, would not have changed the outcome, however, I am not making a finding of fault.
17. Although W’s EHCP acknowledges W’s needs, it does not say these needs are so severe that the Council needs to provide home to school transport. W’s EHCP says he ‘is able to follow simple verbal instructions and will usually do so’ also that ‘his concentration is developing’ and he ‘responds well to adults he knows’. As part of his submission, Mr V said the other issue was that the family had another child who also needed to be taken to school. Childcare issues are not something the Council would consider when making a decision whether to provide school transport to a child – all parents with more than one child might have this problem.
18. Mr V could have presented other information to the Council that would have supported his case either with his initial application or at appeal. He might have chosen to get a letter from a health professional to say W needed home to school transport. Mr V might also have provided additional information about his sister’s accident when she tried to take W to school i.e. from the doctor who had treated her.
19. The Council did consider Mr V’s case at two stages although it is not clear the second stage involved a panel in line with the statutory guidance. Mr V says the same people considered his case at both stages, which is also not in line with statutory guidance. However, as this would not have changed the outcome, I am not making a finding of fault.
20. Mr V said he had a meeting with W’s school in February and the school said it would provide evidence to the Council about W having no sense of danger. He has not provided me with a copy of this. When he has it, Mr V could submit this to the Council asking it to reconsider its decision. He could do the same if he had medical evidence about W’s conditions necessitating the provision of school transport.
21. The Council advised Mr V that, if he remained unhappy after Stage Two, he should make a corporate complaint. There was no need for the Council to do this. The statutory guidance is clear that complainants can come to us following an unsuccessful two stage transport appeal. Because Mr V did not submit any additional information to the Council in support of his corporate complaint, I am not finding it at fault for delay.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There is no evidence of fault and I have now completed my investigation and closed this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman