Kent County Council (19 015 843)

Category : Education > School transport

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 18 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains the Council refused to provide home to school transport for her child, Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint and the Council’s replies to her appeals and complaint which it provided. Ms X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background events

  1. Ms X has two children Y and Z. They both attend School D.
  2. When Y started at School D the Council calculated they lived just over 2 miles from School D and it was their nearest school. The Council agreed to provide free home to school transport. The Council’s decision letter says this will only be until Y reached eight years of age, December 2019.
  3. The Council changed its method for calculating distances. It no longer calculated School D as their closest school and now believed it was less than two miles from their home.
  4. Ms X applied for a place at School D for her younger child Z. She named School D as the first preference and School E as her second. The Council say if she had named School E as her first preference she would have obtained a place at School E.
  5. The Council refused free home to school transport for Z as it now said School D was not the closest school to their home.
  6. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision not to award transport for Z. The Council’s home to school transport appeal panel heard the case in late August 2019. Ms X argued it was not possible to get Z to school and stay with Y whilst they waited for her free transport. The appeal panel agreed to grant free home to school transport for Z until the end of December 2019. At that point Y would be eight and would no longer qualify for home to school transport. They could then travel together.
  7. Ms X says the route to School D is not safe. She would like the Council to provide free home to school transport, from January 2020 onwards, for both Y and Z on the basis the route is unsafe. The Council replied to her request in December 2019. It said the route “ does not meet the necessary criteria to be considered as hazardous as there are sufficient pavements and crossing points for a child to access the school, accompanied as necessary by a responsible adult.”
  8. The Council confirmed Ms X has the right of appeal for the elder child, Y, to ask the appeal panel to consider her safe route arguments.

Background law and Council policy

  1. Under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, parents have a duty to make sure their children attend school.
  2. 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.
  3. 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”. They should also have an appeal process. The Council does have an appeal process.

Analysis

  1. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the Council’s home to school transport appeal panel for her application for transport for Y now the previous grant of transport has expired due to her age.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the Council’s home to school transport appeal panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings