Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport assistance. He says his son is eligible as his mapping system shows the distance between home and school as more than two miles. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport assistance. Mr X says he is eligible under the Council’s policy because his son receives free school meals and the school is more than 2 miles from the home. Mr X says this has caused him an injustice because he is having to pay for transport, and he cannot afford it.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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 spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I considered the information provided by the Council.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory guidance

8. The relevant statutory guidance is ‘Home to school travel and transport guidance’ (July 2014). Councils have a duty to have regard to this guidance.
9. The guidance notes the statutory walking distances eligibility. This means councils must provide free transport for all pupils of compulsory school age if their nearest suitable school is:
• beyond two miles (if below the age of 8); or
• beyond three miles (if aged between 8 and 16).
10. There is also an extended right of eligibility. Councils must provide free transport when pupils are entitled to free school meals or their parents receive maximum Working Tax Credit if:
• the school is between two and six miles (aged 11-16 and there are not three or more suitable nearer schools).
11. The guidance states the measurement of the statutory walking distances is not necessarily the shortest distance by road. It is measured by the shortest route along which a child, accompanied as necessary, may walk safely. The route measured may include footpaths, bridleways, and other pathways, as well as recognised roads. It also states councils should measure the two-mile limit for extended rights in the same way as the statutory walking distances. (paragraph 22 and 23)

Council’s school transport policy

12. The policy notes the Council has a duty to provide free transport where pupils are entitled to free school meals or their parents are in receipt of maximum Working Tax Credit if:
• the school is between two and six miles (if aged 11-16 and there are not three or more suitable nearer schools).
13. The policy notes the Council measures distances using the shortest available walking distance which it considers to be safe. The expectation is that a child will be accompanied by a parent where necessary, unless there is good reason why it Is not reasonable to expect the parent to do so.
14. The policy also sets out the Council will use a Geographical Information System (GIS) to measure the walking distance. The Council says this GIS system is accurate as a measure of walking distance and is based on Ordnance Survey Map data. The Council uses the GIS system to decide the distance from home to school and whether help with transport is necessary.
15. The policy says no other measurement system, including a satnav, can be used unless a parent can prove there is a mistake with the GIS system.

What happened

16. Mr X applied for free school transport. In December 2019, the Council declined Mr X’s application as he did not live over two miles from his son’s school.
17. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council’s responded at stage one of its appeal process and again declined his application. The Council explained his son’s school was 1.96 miles from the family home and the distance was calculated using the Council’s GIS software. As the school was less than two miles from the home, Mr X was not eligible for transport assistance.
18. Mr X was unhappy with the decision and asked the Council to consider his appeal at stage two. Mr X said his maps showed the school was more than two miles from the home address. He also feels the Council should consider the distance by public transport as that is what his son uses to get to school.
19. An appeal panel considered Mr X’s appeal in January 2020. The panel considered Mr X’s point that his measurement showed the distance between home and school to be greater than two miles. The panel noted that Mr X’s measurement was not done on the GIS system which the policy stated would be the arbiter of distance.
20. The panel also considered Mr X’s point that his son’s journey is made by public transport and that the distance measured should be the public transport route. The panel said this was contrary to policy and so the panel could not uphold the point.
21. The panel found Mr X was not eligible for assistance because he did not live more than two miles from the school.

Analysis

22. Statutory guidance does not set out how councils should measure the statutory walking distance. It only notes it is not necessarily the shortest distance by road. Therefore, councils may decide how it will measure the statutory walking distance.
23. The Council’s policy is clear that it will measure distances using the shortest available walking distance which it considers to be safe. It also notes the Council will use GIS software to measure the distance and that no other measurement system can be used.
24. Mr X has provided evidence from different mapping software to support his view that the home is more than two miles from the school. However, as set out in the Council’s policy, no other mapping or measurement system can be used.
25. The policy does allow for another system to be used if a parent can prove there was a mistake with the GIS software. Mr X has not provided any evidence to the Council to prove this. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council for using the distance calculated by its GIS software.
26. I am satisfied the Council was entitled to use the distance of 1.96 miles. I am also satisfied the Council’s transport policy is clear and in line with legislation and statutory guidance.
27. Therefore, there is no fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s appeal. This is because Mr X does not meet the eligibility criteria for transport assistance as set out within the Council’s policy.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find no fault with the Council’s decision not to provide Mr X with transport assistance. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman