Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 018 329)

Category : Education > School transport

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 04 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to consider her daughter G’s special educational needs when deciding not to provide her with transport to school. This had caused distress and time and trouble to the family. The investigation has found evidence of fault leading to injustice. The Council has accepted a remedy and has agreed to hold a fresh Stage Two appeal hearing in line with the relevant statutory guidance.

The complaint

  1. Mrs F complained the Council failed to offer her daughter free transport to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I considered the information provided by Mrs F with her complaint and made enquiries of the Council and assessed its response. I refer to the relevant statutory guidance. I sent Mrs F and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took account of their views before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Mrs F’s daughter, G, has special educational needs that are set out in an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She attends the school named in her EHCP, which is less than three miles from her home.
  2. The Council has said G is not eligible for free home to school transport because she lives within the 3 mile statutory walking distance as set out in the relevant statutory guidance ‘Home to school travel and transport’ (2014). In addition, she is not from a low-income family, in which case she would be given transport if she lived 2 miles from school.
  3. The statutory guidance points out that Councils have duties to provide transport for 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”. It goes on to say that “Eligibility, for such children should be assessed on an individual basis to identify their particular transport requirements”. The guidance is clear that statutory walking distance should not be considered for these children.
  4. The statutory guidance also says the Stage Two appeal should allow verbal and written representations from parents.
  5. The government’s view is that statutory guidance should be followed unless there are very good reasons for a Council not to do so.

What happened

  1. When G was turned down for school transport, Mrs F appealed.
  2. The appeal was unsuccessful. The statutory walking distance appears to have been the only criterion used to make that decision. When a parent is unsuccessful in the first stage appeal, they can go to Stage Two.
  3. I asked the Council for details about its Stage Two hearing and it has only been able to locate a letter sent to Mrs F afterwards. It accepts its Stage Two hearing was not held in line with statutory guidance. This is fault and it has caused distress for Mrs F who was not able to explain G’s, or her own, needs properly.
  4. The letter says that G is not eligible for school transport because: “G does not attend her nearest suitable school: the school her parents have chosen is 2.8 miles away, G is not eligible on grounds of distance and G is not eligible for free school meals”.

What should have happened

  1. In line with statutory guidance, the Council should have held a panel at Stage Two which Mrs F could attend.
  2. The Council should have considered G’s special educational needs. There is nothing mentioned about these. That the school is named on her EHCP makes it her ‘nearest suitable school’ (there is nothing about it being named in accordance with parental preference). Additionally, there is no reflection on what is written in G’s EHCP such as: “she is said to have ‘no awareness of danger’ making it very difficult for her to travel independently” and “she is socially vulnerable as she has no awareness of strangers (and would happily go off with someone she does not know)”.
  3. The Council should have considered whether, given G’s needs, G might be able to travel to school ‘accompanied as necessary’. Mrs F says she cannot accompany G as she has health needs of her own and Mr F works shifts. There is also another sibling at home that needs to get to a special school and cannot be left alone. There is no evidence the Council has considered this.

Agreed action

  1. The Council has accepted it needs to apologise to the family. It is asked to do this within a month of the date of my decision.
  2. The Council will carry out training for officers dealing with school transport applications and appeals, which will cover the process from when a parent applies for school travel assistance and when a parent appeals a decision. It is asked to arrange this training within three months of the date of my decision and to tell me when it has done this.
  3. The Council says it will also ensure that it informs parents with full details of decision-making process. It should make arrangements to update the information it provides to parents within three months of the date of my decision and tell me what action it will take.
  4. The Council will review its home to school travel assistance policy to ensure the section relating to transport appeals reflects Government guidance that parents should be able to present their case verbally as well as in writing. It is asked to commence this process within three months of the date of my decision and to tell me what action it will take.
  5. The Council has also accepted that its actions have caused the family distress and time and trouble. It says a payment of £600 is appropriate for this and I agree. It should make this payment within three months of the date of my decision.
  6. The Council should reconsider G’s case at a properly constituted Stage Two panel taking the evidence in this statement into consideration. It should arrange this meeting within one month of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. Evidence of fault leading to injustice and a remedy has been agreed.

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