Summary: the Ombudsman’s decision is that there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or the appeal panel regarding its consideration of Mr X’s school transport application and appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council failed to properly consider his home to school transport application and appeal for his son, D.

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 have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives less than one mile from his son D’s school and is not eligible for free home to school transport.
6. To be eligible for transport, the child must attend the nearest school to the home address and the school must be over the statutory distance of 3 miles for a child aged over eight and over 2 miles for a child under the age of eight. The local authority must also consider whether a child who lives under the statutory school distance, and who has a disability or an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), could reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their mobility or associated health problems.
7. Government guidance for local authorities is set out “Home to school travel and transport statutory guidance” (2014). This says that, “in determining whether a child can reasonably be expected to walk for the purposes of special educational needs, a disability or mobility problems eligibility …the local authority will need to consider whether the child could reasonably be expected to walk if accompanied and if so whether the child’s parent can be reasonably be expected to accompany the child.”
8. Mr X asked the Council to pay for home to school transport for D, who has special educational needs. Mr X said he needed to drive his son to school because D could not walk to school as he tried to run away and had no sense of danger.
9. The Council refused Mr X’s request. It said that Mr X had not provided medical evidence explaining why D’s medical needs prevented him being able to walk or travel on public transport. It reviewed its decision, but upheld it.
10. Mr X appealed to the Council’s members panel. He said he had a serious medical condition which meant that he could not walk D to school. He said that the family had tried walking D to school but had not succeeded. Therefore, he said he had to drive him to school. He said he received some benefits for D but could not afford to keep the car without financial help from the Council.
11. Mr X attended the appeal hearing. The panel considered Mr X’s appeal and the Council’s presenting officer explained the Council’s decision that D did not meet the Council’s policy for free home to school transport. The panel asked Mr X questions. It then considered the appeal in private. It considered that the Council had properly applied its home to school transport policy. D attended his nearest school but did not live more than the statutory distance for his age group. The panel did not consider that X was eligible due to his health or mobility problems. The panel considered whether it should apply its discretion to make an exception. However, it did not consider that the grounds that Mr X had raised, were sufficient to make an exception. The majority of the panel upheld the Council’s decision.
12. The clerk to the panel wrote to Mr X and explained its decision. The clerk said the panel was satisfied the Council’s policy regarding home to school transport had been applied properly. The clerk also said:

“the panel did consider your change of circumstances…they felt that your case did not warrant them to use their discretion and provide transport assistance.  Whilst they fully understood your reasons as detailed in the case papers and during discussions, they felt that the short distance (under one mile) to drive D was not unreasonable to make and therefore were insufficient grounds to set aside the County Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.”

Analysis

13. In my enquiries to the Council I asked whether the panel had considered if D was eligible for transport assistance due to his mobility problems or associated health and safety issues related to his special educational needs or disability. The clerk’s notes of the hearing and the decision letter did not appear to show how it considered this.
14. The Council replied that the clerk’s notes show that all the panel members confirmed that the Council had correctly applied its Home to School Transport Policy. This policy states within the medical criteria that “'If a child's medical needs affect their ability to travel to and from school, accompanied as necessary by a responsible adult, parents must provide the Transport Eligibility team with evidence from their child's consultant to demonstrate the difficulties they have in walking or travelling by public transport .” The Council says the panel did not consider Mr X had provided medical evidence that sufficiently demonstrated that D was unable to walk to the school due to his needs accompanied as necessary by a responsible adult. The Council also commented that Mr X had not provided the panel with sufficient evidence that Mr X’s wife, Mrs X, could not fulfil the responsibility to provide parental support to D during the journey to school. The panel members considered that the distance of under one mile was not unreasonable.
15. I have considered the Council’s comments and the notes of the panel’s decision making. I consider the panel’s decision letter could have explained its decision that D was not eligible under the medical criteria as there was insufficient evidence his son could not reasonably walk to school accompanied, and that no evidence had been provided to show that Mrs X could not accompany him. However, I have not found fault in the decision making. It appears the panel took account of relevant factors and considered the matter in accordance with the Council’s policy and statutory guidance. Therefore, I have not found fault causing injustice.
16. The panel also considered whether it should apply its discretion and award transport assistance. However, it did not consider the circumstances were such that it should in this instance. I have not found fault in the panel’s decision making.

As explained in paragraph 2, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision if it is not affected by fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have not found fault causing injustice. Therefore, I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman