Summary: Mrs C says the Council should pay for her son X’s school transport. She says its failure to do so caused her expense. The Council is not at fault. Its decision is in line with the law and government guidance.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mrs C, says the Council is at fault for its failure to pay for her son’s school transport. She says this failure has caused injustice because the transport costs her £9 a day.

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 spoke to Mrs C. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. I considered the relevant law and made my decision.
5. I sent my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and invited their comments. I considered the comments but no changes were required.

Back to top

What I found

School transport

6. Local authorities must make ‘suitable travel arrangements’, for ‘eligible children’ to attend their ‘qualifying school’. This transport must be provided free of charge.
7. The ‘qualifying school’ is the nearest school with places available that provides ‘education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child’.
8. ‘Eligible children’ are defined in Schedule 35B of the Act as:
1. children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children between eight and 16);
2. children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem; and
3. children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because the route is deemed unsafe to walk.

What happened

9. In early 2019, Mrs C’s son, X, who was in Year 7, attended his qualifying school, School A which was 2.5 miles from the family home. While there, his behaviour deteriorated and Mrs C decided to send him to another school, School B.
10. School B is 4.4 miles from their home. The Council says there are other schools closer to their house. Mrs C accepts there is at least one closer school to her house but says there is no safe way to walk to School B as the local roads are dangerous. School transport costs her £9 a day.
11. Mrs C applied to the Council for free school transport. The Council refused. She appealed and the decision to refuse was upheld by the appeals panel. Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Consideration

12. The Council only has a duty to provide transport for a child if they attend their qualifying school. With a child of X’s age, the qualifying school must also be more than three miles from the family home or the route to school must be unsafe for the Council to have the duty to provide transport.
13. School B is not X’s qualifying school. Therefore, even though it is more than three miles from the family home and the route is unsafe to walk, the Council does not have a duty to provide X with transport to it.
14. Mrs C says that, at the appeal, she was told that, had she applied to another school, School C, and, had X been refused a place there because it was full, and had X been offered a place at School B instead, then the Council would have had to pay her school transport to there.
15. She also says that, at that time, she approached School C and asked them if they had any available places and they said they did not. Therefore, she suggests, the Council should pay for X’s transport.
16. The Council says there is no record of this being said at the appeal. It also says it has no way of knowing whether there were any vacancies at School C on the day she applied to School B as it is not School C’s admissions authority. It also says that, in fact, School B is the fifth closest school to Mrs C’s home.

Conclusion

17. The Ombudsman makes his decisions on the available evidence. On the facts and evidence, the Council was not at fault. The law says the Council only need pay transport for eligible pupils to their qualifying school. X is not attending his qualifying school.
18. In fact, Mrs C did not apply to School C. And, even if she had, there is no evidence that School C was ‘full’ on the day she applied to School B. Even if it was, this does not mean that X would have been offered a place at School B.
19. School B is. The Council says School B is the fifth closest school to Mrs C’s house. If so, it is most unlikely that it would become her qualifying school. For it to do so, all the schools closer to Mrs C’s home would have to be full. In any event, School B is still not the qualifying school.
20. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have made my decision that the Council was not at fault and have closed investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman