Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision which caused him to lose out on transport.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his child, B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint, the Council’s replies to his appeal which it provided, and the appeal papers. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background events

5. B was due to move to senior school in September 2019. Mr X applied for a place for B at School Y. This is not the nearest school to their home. It is the school that most of the fellow pupils at B’s primary school were going to attend. Mr X only put one school on his school admissions’ application form.
6. In March 2019, Mr X learnt his application had been successful and B had been allocated a place at School Y.
7. Mr X applied for home to school transport as School Y is more than three miles from their home. The Council refused the application. It said Mr X had not applied to their closest school. It said there were other nearer suitable schools.
8. Mr X appealed. He said that it made common sense for B to be allowed onto the transport from a nearby village which travels to School Y. He says this will be better for the environment than him personally driving B to School Y every day. The Appeal refused his application.
9. Mr X says the Council used a postcode for his village and not his actual address. He says it was not clear before he applied for a school place that he would not get free transport. He says at the appeal the Panel was shown information about the nearest school which he says was not in the public domain. He believes the Appeal Panel made its mind up before the appeal started. Mr X says the Council told the appeal panel it would provide free transport to any school in a nearby town. Mr X says some of these schools are further away than School Y.

Background law, Council policy and information

10. Under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, parents have a duty to make sure their children attend school.
11. To support parents in this duty, section 508B(1) and schedule 35B of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to make home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for eligible children to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ are defined as those who:
• cannot walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• cannot walk to school safely because of the nature of the route;
• live outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children over eight); and
• are entitled to assistance on low income grounds.
12. Councils also have discretion under the 1996 Act to offer transport “where they consider it necessary to facilitate the child’s attendance at the school”.
13. The Council’s policy matches the legal duty.
14. The Council’s website section on school admissions advises parents to think about how they will get their child to school and to check whether free home to school transport is available. It provides a link to the home to school transport section. In that section you can find out which is your nearest school by inputting your own postcode. By doing this for Mr X’s postcode it shows School Y is not the nearest school to their home. Mr X has provided no information to show that in any method School Y is his nearest school.
15. Mr X raised the postcode issue at the appeal. The Council confirmed it had used Mr X’s address and not his postcode.
16. There is no evidence the ability of free transport to any other school was a factor in the appeal panel’s decision. There is no reference to the Council saying Mr X would get free transport to a school further away than School Y in the clerk’s notes of the appeal, nor the appeal panel’s decision letter.

Analysis

17. Parents are expected to check out whether they would get free home to school transport before they apply for a school place if they require it.
18. The Council’s decision to refuse transport is in line both with the law and with the Council’s own policy.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused Mr X to lose out on home to school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman