Summary: The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs C’s son free school transport.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mrs C, says the Council is at fault in its decision to refuse her son free transport to school. Mrs C this has led to stress for the family, as she feels she is taking a risk taking him to school herself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered Mrs C’s written complaint. I have made enquiries with the Council and considered its responses together with the appeal papers.
5. I have considered the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy, the Department for Education’s Home to school travel and transport guidance and the School Admissions Code.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Transport for eligible children to the nearest suitable school

7. The Department for Education issued Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance (the statutory guidance) in July 2014. (The Education Act 1996 sections 508 and 509, and part 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006)
8. Councils are required to make travel arrangements and provide free transport for “eligible children” of compulsory school age to attend their nearest suitable school. Eligible children are defined in Schedule 35B of the Education Act 1996 and include:
• children living outside “statutory walking distance” from the school (two miles for children aged under eight, three miles for children between eight and 16);
• children entitled to free school meals, or whose parents are in receipt of their maximum level of working tax credit if the school is between two and six miles (aged 11 to 16 and for transport to one of their three nearest qualifying schools).

Discretionary transport

9. Councils can also provide transport or meet the cost of transport on a discretionary basis for children who do not meet the eligibility criteria. The guidance recognises that an authority will need to balance demands against their funding priorities.

The Council’s policy

10. The Councils Home to School Transport Policy states that ordinarily, children under 5 would not be entitled to travel assistance between home and school.
11. However, the policy states that it will consider applications under extenuating circumstances, where a child would be prevented from attending school unless assistance was put in place.
12. Cases considered under extenuating circumstance will be determined based on supporting evidence, on a case by case basis.
13. The Council’s website states that it aims to process applications within three weeks, but those submitted during the busy period between June and September may take longer.
14. The Council has a two-stage appeals process. At the first stage an officer will review the original decision and respond within 25 days. At the second stage a panel will consider the decision and respond within 40 days.

What happened

15. Mrs C has a son, D, who has a development delay and uncontrollable epilepsy. On June 2019, when D was 2 years old, Mrs C applied for transport assistance from the family home to D’s specialist nursery.
16. On 29 August, the Council wrote to Mrs C informing her that D was not eligible to transport assistance, because he was not of statutory school age. The Council invited Mrs C to appeal at stage 1 of its appeals process, if she considered there to be exceptional circumstances that would prevent D from attending nursery.
17. On 5 September, Mrs C appealed. In her appeal Mrs C said that someone needed to supervise D in the car, and it was not safe for her to do so while driving. Mrs C also said that she has another young child and it would not be safe to drive with both in the car. Mrs B said her partner was unable to assist as he has type-1 diabetes.
18. In support of her application, Mrs B provided several documents which detailed D’s medical history.
19. On 5 November, the Council wrote to Mrs C refusing her appeal. It said that, while it appreciated she had concerns about monitoring D, and concerns about her partner’s medical issues, it said there was limited evidence about why Mrs B could not transport D to school with the assistance of her partner.
20. Mrs C appealed the decision on 20 November, requesting it be considered at stage 2 of the Council’s appeals process. She said D requires constant monitoring and that her husband was unable to assist, as he leaves the house for work at 7am and does not return until 7pm.
21. The panel sat on 17 December. The minutes show the panel considered the following:
• The relevant guidance and policy.
• D’s Special Educational Needs (SEN).
• The points Mrs C raised in her appeal.
22. The panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence as to why Mrs C’s partner could not accompany her in the car, therefore it did not consider that the evidence provided demonstrated exceptional circumstances. It therefore upheld the decision to refuse Mrs C’s application.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Mrs C’s son. This is the Council’s job. The Ombudsman checks the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question Council decisions made without fault, no matter how strongly Mrs C disagrees.
24. Having considered all the relevant information in this case, I am satisfied that the Council followed its policy, government guidance and legislation. It took all relevant information into account when reaching its decision and did not take irrelevant information into account.
25. The Council reached its decision without any evidence of fault. Therefore, as explained in paragraph 2, I am unable to questions the merits of that decision.
26. Mrs C says the Council took too long reaching its decision. I am satisfied that the Council considered the stage 1 and 2 appeals within the timeframes detailed in its policy. There were delays in making its initial decision. However, the Council did inform applicants of its busiest period, and that delays are likely during time.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman