Summary: Miss A complains the Council and appeal panel were at fault regarding her school transport appeal. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss A, complains the Council did not properly consider her application and appeal for school transport for her son X. She says the appeal panel led her to believe it would consider the walking route she identified but did not do so. She says the Council agreed to walk the route but did not do so, and used different school start points for the route.

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 information provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss A lives more than three miles from her son’s secondary school. She applied for home to school transport assistance for her son, X. The Council rejected her application in June 2019 because it said he did not attend his nearest school. Miss A appealed the Council’s decision.
6. The Council considered Miss A’s appeal at the first stage of its appeal procedure. The Council’s decision was that X was not eligible for free school transport because he did not attend his nearest appropriate school. The Council said that the nearest school was School Q. The Council noted Miss A grounds that X’s school was the nearest and that her neighbour who lived 3 metres from her home had established that her son’s school was the nearest. But it said it had correctly assessed the distance and School Q was nearest. It said it could not comment on another child’s case, but assessed each case on an individual basis in accordance with the criteria.
7. In July Miss A appealed to the Regulations Committee Appeal Panel (the Panel”) which is made up of Council members. She attached copies of maps which she said showed her son’s school was nearest via walking or driving routes. She specified her route ended at a particular entrance to X’s school.
8. In advance of the hearing, the Council’s school transport team provided a written case explaining the reasons for its decision to the panel and to Miss A. One day before the hearing, Miss A provided further information which she said showed a new footpath which X could use to get to school. She said this would mean her son’s school was even closer.
9. The clerk’s notes of the hearing show the Panel’s chair advised that it and the Council’s transport team had not had time to consider Miss A’s new route. Therefore, the Panel could not take it into account when making a decision unless the hearing was adjourned. The notes show Miss A and her representative then agreed to continue the appeal based on the information available to it, but following the hearing, depending on the decision, the transport team would investigate the route.
10. The Council’s transport team representative gave the Council’s case why it had decided that X was not eligible for free school transport. The panel then heard Miss A’s and her representative’s grounds. The panel noted that Miss A said a neighbour who lived within 3 metres of her home had established a shorter route and received transport assistance. Miss A’s representative said the differences were very small and the Council should use its discretion. Miss A said she had found a route via a footpath which meant it was 3.905 miles from home to school. This was nearer than the Council’s calculation of the distance to school Q. It was even closer if the Council accepted a different entrance to the preferred school. The panel asked the transport representative about the mapping points which the Council used for the school. The representative explained it was set by the software they used. Miss A said she had not walked the route she had found but would as soon as she could. She said that there would be no costs to the Council and it would give X independence.
11. The panel then considered the appeal in private and decided that the Council had properly applied its home to school transport policy. It then discussed whether it should use its discretion to award transport and decided by a majority of 4 to 1 that it should not. It discussed the school mapping point and the differences in measuring the route. It noted that the Council would consider the latest new route that Miss A had found.
12. The Panel wrote to Miss A in September 2019 and advised it did not uphold her appeal. It said it had considered the Council’s policy on discretionary transport payments and her detailed papers regarding a new route to X’s school. It noted that X had worked very hard to get into the school and Miss A believed he deserved to be rewarded for that. But it did not consider there were sufficient grounds to set aside the home to school transport policy.

Analysis

13. Miss A complained to the Ombudsman in September 2019. She said that the panel did not make it clear the panel would not consider the route she had found. She said the Panel had asked questions about it, so she thought it was considering it. The clerk’s notes show the chair asked Miss A and her representative “would you like to continue, or would you like this to be deferred, we can make a decision on the information that is available to us.” The notes show the representative said they “would like to continue”.
14. Therefore, I do not see there is evidence that the panel considered the new route Miss A had found. It considered the information that it had when Miss A first appealed.
15. The Panel considered relevant matters, including the points Miss A had raised, the Council policy and guidance. I have not found evidence of fault here.
16. Miss A’s new route was considered by the Council in September 2019. The Council’s carried out a manual assessment and walked the route. I have seen the emails between the Council and Miss A where she questioned the Council’s view that using her new route, school Q remained the nearest school. The school mapping points for X’s school and school Q were discussed. The Council did not accept that one of Miss A’s routes existed because the entrance to the school was not in use. It explained that if it accepted a different mapping pint for X’s school it would also use a different end point for school Q, to a different entrance. I do not see that there is fault in this. Using the revised entrances, school Q was still the nearest school.
17. Miss A has questioned the panel’s decision letter which refers to her believing that X deserved to get free transport because of his hard work. She says that this was not one of her grounds of appeal. While this may be the case, I do not see that there is evidence that this point affected the panels’ decision making. I have not found fault in the way that the decision was reached.
18. Miss A said that the Council and the panel did not consider relevant case law, S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA. That case found that local authorities should consider whether the cost of providing transport to a parent’s choice of school is incompatible with the efficient use of resources. In Miss A’s case she had pointed out that there was no additional cost to the Council to provide transport to X. I have considered this. However, the caselaw Miss A refers to is not relevant in this context, as it applies to local authorities’ obligations to provide transport to children with special educational needs who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council or the panel in its consideration of this matter. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman