Summary: Ms W complained her child, V, should continue to benefit from free home-to-school transport. She said the Council’s failure to consider this appropriately had caused her distress. The investigation has found no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms W, said the Council had failed to properly consider whether her child, V, should have free home-to-school transport.
2. I considered this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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

5. I considered Ms W’s complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and assessed its response. I have relied on the statutory guidance on Home to School Travel and Transport (2014) and the Council’s transport policy. I sent Ms W and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took the comments they made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. V is a teenager who has special educational needs. V has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and attends a special school.
7. The Council says V is not eligible for school transport because he does not meet its criteria.
8. Policy in this area is led by the statutory guidance on ‘Home to school travel and transport’ from July 2014.

Home-to-school travel and transport statutory guidance

9. The statutory guidance is clear that children who live further than the statutory walking distance, and who attend their closest available school, would receive free transport to school whether or not they had an EHCP
10. It sets out that Councils have duties to: “make transport arrangements for all children who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their mobility problems or because of associated health and safety issues related to their special educational needs (SEN) or disability”.
11. The statutory guidance continues that; “Eligibility, for such children should be assessed on an individual basis to identify their particular transport requirements. Usual transport requirements (e.g. the statutory walking distances) should not be considered when assessing the transport needs of children eligible due to SEN and/or disability”.
12. The statutory guidance highlights: “When considering whether a child’s parent can reasonably be expected to accompany the child on the journey to school a range of factors may need to be taken into account, such as the age of the child and whether one would ordinarily expect a child of that age to be accompanied”.
13. It also says: “For arrangements to be suitable, they must also be safe and reasonably stress free, to enable the child to arrive at school ready for a day of study”.

The Council’s policy

14. The Council’s policy sets out criteria, which may mean a child will get free home-to-school transport. It considers whether:
1. The child has an EHCP;
2. The school named is the nearest suitable school;
3. The school is beyond the statutory walking distance;
4. The child has a physical or learning disability such that they are unable to walk to school; and whether,
5. You or your partner have a disabiliity so cannot accompany (the child) to school.
15. The Council says that any EHCP should set out “a severe medical or physical condition and (be accompanied by) detailed written advice from appropriate medical personnel”.
16. The Council says it assesses individual cases to consider whether their conditions, as set out in their EHCP, mean travel should be provided.
17. The Council also says children and young people may be ‘accompanied as necessary’ along a potential walking route to school.
18. The Council’s school transport appeals process follows the requirements set out in the statutory guidance. At Stage One, the decision to refuse is reviewed by a senior officer and at Stage Two there is a panel hearing. There was a further meeting following the 16 September panel because a route was presented at the appeal, which Mrs W was not made aware of in advance. That route, and a route preferred by her, were both walked on 2 October and a further meeting was held on 23 October to discuss the results.

How V’s case was considered

19. In light of the statutory guidance setting out walking distances; it cannot be the case that children would need to live further than the statutory walking distance between home and school and have an EHCP in order to receive free home to school transport. The Council may need to consider its wording here.
20. In terms of the Council’s criteria; V has an EHCP and attends his nearest suitable school. The school is not beyond the statutory walking distance and there is nothing in V’s EHCP to suggest V cannot walk to school or that Ms W cannot accompany him.
21. That a child’s EHCP needs to set out “a severe medical or physical condition” is not fault. This would help the Council to judge whether a child was able to walk to school including if the school was within statutory walking distance. There is no “severe medical or physical condition” set out in V’s EHCP to suggest he could not walk.
22. The Council received evidence from the school V attends and a community paediatrician both saying V should be provided with school transport. The information from the paediatrician was not “detailed written advice”, which the Council’s policy requests. The paediatrician told the Council he was “happy to discuss this further with you” but there is no evidence the Council asked for this or reiterated the need for the necessary “detailed written advice”. As this is in the Council’s guidance, however, and the consultant understood the purpose for which the letter was being used, I cannot find the Council at fault for this.
23. The paediatrician provided a further letter to the final meeting. This also contains no ‘detailed written advice’ apart from V needing to be accompanied. It says Ms W “strongly feels that (V) just cannot physically manage a two mile walk there and back every day” but this is not a medical view and there is no medical evidence provided to support it.
24. There is evidence the Council considered V’s case. It has provided me with its views. Ms W said the Council presented new information to the appeal panel in terms of a map that had not been seen. No one mentioned this at the time, which was poor practice. The Council accepted this information should not have been presented. The panel also agreed that the new route should be walked, as should the route identified by Ms W. It had a further meeting to discuss this at which details of the routes were shared. It was not agreed to provide V with transport. I am not finding fault given the Council’s subsequent actions.
25. The Council told me; “it would always remain the parent’s choice as to whether they may allow their child to go to school unaccompanied” but this is not the case for children whose special needs mean they have to be accompanied. Although the Council could consider it to be “detrimental to the child’s ability to develop independence skills if (they are) not taught to use roads safely” this suggests all children can be “taught to use roads safely”, which is not the case. However, Ms W says V has ‘be(en) taught to use roads safely’.
26. Ms W said that after a day at school, even with bus transportation, V goes to bed and sleeps. She is concerned that V would not be ‘ready for a day of study’ if he had to walk to school and might refuse to attend at all. This is not mentioned in the school’s letter of support and there is no medical view expressed about this.
27. Ms W says the safe walking routes have not been measured correctly. The Council has said the routes are measured in the same way for all children applying for transport. However, the Council accepts that one route had two different measurements presented although both were under two miles. V has not lost out on transport because of the Council’s actions. The Council measured a range of routes because there are a number of possible routes from V’s home to school. It does not have to present evidence of every one. Ms W can decide which route is ‘best’ for V but that does not mean others are not appropriately safe if and when a child or young person is accompanied.
28. Ms W complains the Council did not give her advice about ‘non-entitled transport’. Once the Council decides not to offer free home-to-school transport, it is her responsibility, under the Education Act 1996, to ensure V gets to school. There is information about ‘non-entitled transport’ on the relevant Council website along with details as to how this can be accessed. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman