Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide home to school transport for her son. We do not find fault in the way the Council reached its decision on Miss X’s application and appeal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide home to school transport for her son. She says the Council made baseless assumptions when it considered her application. She says the Council’s decision has caused her son stress.

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 Miss X and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered the information provided by the Council.
7. I sent a draft decision to Miss X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

8. The law concerning education transport is set out in the Education Act 1996. The Act divides children and young people into three groups:
• children of compulsory school age;
• young people of sixth form age; and
• adult learners.
9. For young people of sixth form age, councils must ‘make arrangements they consider necessary to facilitate their attendance’.
10. Statutory guidance says if someone asks a council for transport assistance for a young person over 16 years old it must assess their situation and decide whether to provide transport or financial support reasonably, taking into account all relevant matters. This includes consideration of whether it is reasonably practical in the circumstances for parents to accompany their post-16 year old child.

The Council’s SEND travel assistance policy for 16-19 year olds

11. The policy notes the panel will consider whether it is reasonably practical in the circumstances of each case for parents/carers to accompany the student. Applications will be assessed based on the evidence provided.
12. In considering the eligibility of the student to receive an offer, and what offer should be made, the panel will consider the following and/or any other relevant factors:
• Nature of the journey for the student/family for example, the distance, likely journey time, and complexity of the journey by road, public transport or on foot; whether the journey on foot or public transport could be reasonably made if the student is accompanied.
• Parent/carer/broader network available to accompany for example, the current commitments of the parent(s)/carer(s) and broader network; whether the student's family or broader network is reasonably able to transport or accompany them, given all other factors.
• Available suitable vehicle and/or disability benefits for example, whether the family has a suitable vehicle, which may include a Motability vehicle; whether the student is receiving PIP with a component intended to support travel; any current social care support.
• The student's needs relating to travel for example, whether the student has complex needs, and/or requires a second person on transport; if independent travel is a realistic goal, and whether this has been appropriately encouraged by the family.
• The financial circumstances of the family and potential impact of a declined application.
• Other relevant factors, for example, the health of the parent/carer and the potential impact of providing transport or accompanying the student, given all other factors.

What happened

13. In August 2020, Miss X applied for transport assistance for her son, A, to get to college. In her application, Miss X noted the following:
• A’s college was named in his Education, Health, and Care plan.
• A had epilepsy, which was controlled with medicine.
• A received the higher rate mobility component of personal independence payment (PIP).
• Her job was a carer for A and her daughter.
• A could potentially be able to travel independently one day.
14. In October 2020, the Council declined Miss X’s application. The Council noted the following reasons for declining:
• Miss X was available to accompany A on the bus to and from college each day. The panel acknowledged Miss X had a three year old daughter and that no other adult lived in the household to help with childcare. However, the panel determined Miss X could either leave her daughter at a playschool or nursery or take her along when accompanying A to college.
• The panel noted Miss X had funded taxis for A to get to and from college for the last academic year. The panel considered this continued to be an option if she chose not to accompany A herself.
• A had been referred for independent travel training. The panel suggested Miss X continue to engage with this training programme to support A to learn to travel independently to college.
15. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision in November 2020. She provided the Council within information about her finances. In the appeal form, Miss X also noted she was available to take A to college at least two days per week.
16. The Council declined Miss X’s appeal in January 2021 as it did not consider it was necessary to provide A with transport to facilitate his attendance at college. The Council also declined to exercise discretion to assist in whole, or in part, with transport costs.
17. The panel considered the following:
• There were reasonable public transport options from A’s home address to college. The panel were of the view A could access public transport if accompanied as his epilepsy was controlled by medication.
• It was appropriate for Miss X to accompany A as the information provided stated Miss X’s job was caring for A and his sister. The panel took this to mean Miss X was reasonably available to assist with the journey to college. The panel also noted it considered Miss X could accompany A each day if she made use of nursery provision.
• The panel agreed it would be a struggle for Miss X to continue to pay for taxis. However, the panel did not believe A could only access college by taxi.
• A received the mobility component in his PIP and that could be used to offset against his transport costs.
• A was likely to be entitled to a discretionary bursary from his college.

Analysis

18. Based on the available evidence, I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision on Miss X’s application and appeal.
19. This is because the evidence shows the Council appropriately considered all relevant information when it considered whether it was necessary to provide transport to facilitate A’s attendance at college. The Council also considered all the information provided by Miss X in her application and appeal. This is in line with the law and statutory guidance.
20. As the Council has made its decision properly, I cannot find fault, or criticise, the decision itself.
21. Miss X said the Council made baseless assumptions about her being able to access nursery provision. She said she could have provided further information if the Council had asked.
22. I note it is open to Miss X to provide the Council with further information to consider if she feels the Council has made incorrect assumptions about the availability of nursery provision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision on Miss X’s application and appeal for transport assistance.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman