Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his child, S, with school transport in 2019. We found the Council was not at fault for not providing transport for S for his after-school clubs. However, there was one incident when the Council should have provided transport but did not. The Council has already repaid Mr X the taxi cost and offered him £150 for his time and trouble. There is no further outstanding injustice to remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide school transport his child, S, between September 2019 and November 2019. He also said that the Council failed to transport S home after one of his therapy sessions in October 2020.
2. Ms X says because of this he had to pay for a taxi to transport S.
3. He further complained the Council did not follow its own policy when it decided not to provide transport for S for his after-school clubs. He said they formed part of S’s core Key Stage 3 (KS3) curriculum.
4. Mr X wants the Council to amend the school transport times for S, repay him the cost of the taxi, apologise, and pay him for the stress he experienced in chasing his complaint.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide school transport for S for his after-school clubs. There are parts of Mr X’s complaint that I did not investigate, and I explain why at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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

8. I considered the information Mr X sent me, and I spoke to him about his complaint.
9. I considered the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. Councils have a duty to provide free home to school transport for eligible children to qualifying schools. (Education Act 1996, section 508B)
12. Eligible children are children of compulsory school age who:
• cannot walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or a mobility problem;
• live beyond the statutory walking distance; or 
• receive free school meals, or whose parents receive the maximum Working Tax Credit. (Education Act 1996, Schedule 35B)
13. The statutory walking distance is two miles for a child aged under eight and three miles for a child aged eight and over. It is measured by the shortest route along which a child, accompanied as necessary, may walk with reasonable safety. (Education Act 1996, section 444(5)) 
14. The nearest qualifying school is the nearest school, with places available that provides education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have.
15. The Council’s school travel policy says that it will only provide travel assistance for the beginning and end of the school day. It also says that it will not provide any travel assistance for after-school clubs. This remains the parent’s responsibility.

What happened

16. In the summer of 2019 Mr X contacted the Council and asked it to provide school transport for his son, S.
17. The Council told Mr X that it would update him closer to the start of term, but it did not. In August 2019 Mr X asked the Council for an update. Mr X told the Council that S would have to attend school early and leave later than other students. This was because of the therapy sessions set out in S’s Education, Health and Care plan that were taking place before and after school.
18. The Council replied to Mr X and said that it contacted S’s school which confirmed the hours of his school day, and because of this the Council would not transport S outside these hours.
19. Between September 2019 and November 2019 Mr S paid for taxis to take S to and from school after his therapy sessions. In November 2019 Mr X approached S’s school and asked it to include S’s therapy sessions in his school day timetable, which the school did.
20. In October 2020 S had a therapy session that took place after normal school hours and, because of this, he missed his school transport home. In the same month, Mr X complained to the Council and said that since September 2019 the Council was:
• in breach of its transport policy and failed to consider S’s therapy requirements when it arranged his school transport; and
• failing to provide S with transport following his after-school clubs which, Mr X said, formed part of his KS3 core curriculum.
21. Mr X asked the Council to:
• repay him the taxi costs he incurred;
• agree to drop off and collect S at the end of his school day, which was not always within the school’s normal hours;
• compensate S for any lost therapy provision; and
• compensate him for time and trouble in chasing his complaint.
22. In January 2021 the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint about S’s school transport. It apologised for the delay in getting back to him, and partly upheld his complaint about S’s school transport. It agreed that it:
• would repay Mr X the £172.50 he spent on taxis for S. This included the £15 he paid for the taxi in October 2020; and
• would amend S’s school transport so he could take part in therapy sessions included in his EHC plan.
23. It confirmed it had read the KS3 diploma documents and that the after-school activities were extra-curricular. Therefore, it did not consider the after-school clubs formed S’s core curriculum. The Council said that it spoke to S’s school, and it confirmed he continued to receive all the therapy included in his EHC plan. This meant he did not lose out on any therapy provision from his EHC plan.
24. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint. He said the Council should be providing the transport for S’s after-school clubs. He also pointed out the Council upheld several points of his complaint, but it did not offer him any compensation for his time and trouble in complaining.
25. In April 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X further. It explained that before agreeing S’s transport hours the SEN officer and Travel Assistance officer should have discussed how, and when, the school was going to provide therapy sessions that met S’s needs. The Council offered Mr X £150 for his time and trouble and referred him to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body; we cannot criticise a decision which is properly made or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Mr X complained about the lack of transport for S’s after-school clubs. We found the Council was not at fault. Before making its decision, the Council looked at the school’s booklet. The booklet referred to the after-school clubs as an “extra-curricular” part of the KS3 Diploma, and because of this the Council decided that transporting S to attend after-school clubs was the parent’s responsibility. This decision is in line with the Council’s transport policy and there is no indication of fault in the way the Council made it. The law says we cannot question a decision that was made without fault.
27. Mr X also complained about a day in October 2020, when the Council failed to take S home after an after-school therapy session. The Council has repaid Mr X the cost of the taxi. I consider this to be a satisfactory remedy.
28. I note that following Mr X’s complaint about missed school transport the Council agreed to pay him £150 for his time and trouble in chasing his complaint. I consider this to be a satisfactory remedy for the avoidable time and trouble Mr X went to in chasing his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council was not at fault when it decided it would not to provide S with transport for his after-school clubs and my investigation is now complete.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide school transport for S from September 2019 to November 2019. Mr X said that he had to pay for taxis to take S to school early so S could access therapies set out in his EHC plan. The Council has agreed to change the school transport times for S, and it repaid Mr X the money he spent on taxis for S. Additionally, Mr X confirmed that S was not missing out any provision set out in his EHC plan. I consider there is no outstanding injustice to S resulting from the action the Council took in 2019.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman