Summary: Miss X complains the Council has refused her application for school transport for her daughter. There is no fault as the Council followed correct procedure when reaching its decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has refused her application for school transport for her daughter, D.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint the Council has refused school transport for her daughter, D.
3. Paragraphs 30 and 31 state what I have not investigated and why.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))
7. 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

8. I have considered Miss X’s complaint and supporting information.
9. I have also considered the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint and to my enquiries.
10. I have written to Miss X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

11. D has autism and moderate learning difficulties. She has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). She started secondary school in September 2019. D’s EHC Plan names the school but states ‘agreed as parental preference’ in brackets. The school is a mainstream all-girl faith school.

School transport application, review and appeal

12. In January 2019, Miss X applied to the Council for free school transport for her daughter who was due to start secondary school in September 2019.
13. The Council refused Miss X’s application. It stated that, under the Council’s policy for transport to faith schools, D did not qualify. This is because D did not meet the low-income criteria.
14. In February, Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision on the following grounds:
• The school is not the closest but feel it is the most suitable for D;
• If D were to catch the bus, she would have to walk 30 minutes. She cannot safely do this independently;
• D cannot read or write independently so she could not use a mobile phone if there was a problem;
• D’s younger brother attends primary school which starts at the same time so Miss X cannot take them both;
• Only need transport for D on three days.
15. The Council completed the review and did not change its decision. It said the Council only provides free transport to a child’s nearest faith school on grounds of low income. It said D’s EHC Plan noted that the school was parental preference, rather than the nearest suitable school. It said in these cases, it is the parents’ responsibility to make arrangements for their child’s transport to school.
16. In March, Miss X appealed against the Council’s decision. She appealed on the following grounds:
• Visited numerous secondary schools that were nearer to their home. None of these would provide the right support and assistance for D;
• Wanted D to attend an all-girls school as she is a vulnerable young person who does not have the maturity level to manage the ‘boy’ element of school;
• D lacks the maturity to walk to school or catch a bus alone;
• Cannot afford to pay for six taxis a week (to and from school, 3 days a week);
17. The Council received two letters from professionals in support Miss X’s appeal. These identified problems that D has with speech and communication especially in unfamiliar situations. They both said these problems would make D vulnerable if she were to walk or catch the bus to school without adult support.
18. In April, an independent panel met to discuss D’s appeal. Miss X attended and gave a verbal presentation.
19. From the evidence I have seen, the panel considered the relevant parts of the Council’s school transport policy, Miss X’s original application and subsequent review and appeal requests, the supporting information provided by professionals, and Miss X’s verbal presentation.
20. The panel concluded that D did not qualify for free school transport under the school transport policy. It did not agree to provide school transport as it did not feel it was a sustainable option to build D’s independence.
21. The panel did however agree to offer D an alternative solution.

Personal Transport Allowance

22. The Council offered D a temporary personal transport allowance to assist with her transition to secondary school. This would be the equivalent to a petrol allowance for the three days the family had stated they are unable to provide transport to and from school.
23. The Council said the family may use this as they see fit to get D to school. It highlighted that this was a temporary allowance until Easter 2020 in order to give the family time to make sustainable travel arrangements for D.
24. Miss X has not accepted the Council’s offer of a personal transport allowance for D. She said it is not enough to pay for the six taxis D would need per week.

My Findings

25. Miss X chose a mainstream all-girl faith secondary school for her daughter as she felt it would provide the right support and assistance for D’s needs. She has said she did not choose the school on the grounds of it being a faith school.
26. The Council said because there are other mainstream schools closer to D’s home, this school was not the nearest suitable school to D’s home.
27. The Council considers any mainstream school can meet D’s needs.
28. This is not the nearest school; it is Miss X’s preferred school. Therefore, D is not eligible for school transport.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I do not uphold Miss X’s complaint. The Council correctly followed its procedure when considering Miss X’s application, review and appeal. I have closed the case.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. I have not investigated Miss X’s request for the Council to name the school in her daughter’s EHC Plan rather than state it as a ‘parental preference’.
31. This is because EHC Plans and their content are dealt with through a SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman