Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to not provide her child with free school transport. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council refused to provide her child, Z, with free school transport when it previously provided her older child with it, to travel to the same school. Ms X said the matter has been upsetting for her and her family. She wants the Council to reconsider its decision and provide her child with free school transport.

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 considered the information provided by Ms X and spoke with Ms X about her complaint.
5. I considered the information provided by the Council including its ‘Home to School Transport’ policy.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

7. Councils have a duty to provide suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:
• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)
8. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. (Home to School transport guidance July 2014 paragraphs 54-55). The guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:
• Stage 1: review by a senior officer. Within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision, a senior officer reviews the original decision and sends the parent a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review setting out the nature of the decision, how the review was conducted, what was taken into account, the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage 2; and
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request for an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about appealing to us.

The Council’s Home to School Transport Policy

9. The policy states when the Council determines eligibility for assistance with transport, the home to school distance is measured by walking routes to determine the nearest school and whether a pupil lives within the statutory distances.
10. If a child is attending their nearest school and the shortest walking route from home to school is not safe and there is no reasonable alternative route (under the statutory distance), the Council will provide assistance with transport.
11. The Council’s policy also states parents should not assume that if one child receives assistance with home to school transport, that their siblings will also receive this in the future.

What happened

12. Ms X has two children, Y and Z. Ms X’s older child, Y, has been attending School A since 2015. School A is 3.21 miles from Ms X’s home address. Ms X had applied for free school transport for Y to travel to and from School A which the Council had granted.
13. In 2019, Ms X applied for her younger child, Z, to also attend School A, in the reception year group. Z was given a place at School A and Ms X believed they would also be eligible for free school transport. However, the Council informed Ms X that Z was not eligible for free school transport to School A as it was not the nearest school from their address. The Council informed Ms X the nearest school from their address was School B which was 3.06 miles away.
14. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s decision. She said the Council had always provided free school transport for children in her area to travel to School A. She therefore thought School A was their nearest school. Ms X continued and said although the Council had considered School B as their nearest school, it would take longer to travel there due to the roads and traffic. Ms X said she did not apply for Z to attend School B as School B had indicated it was full. She added it would be upsetting for Z to attend a different school to their sibling.
15. Ms X requested a Senior Officer review of her case. Ms X completed an application form and stated:
• It was unfair the Council had recalculated that their nearest school was School B, considering her other child was already attending School A.
• It was a reasonable expectation that Z would also be given free school transport to attend the same school as Y.
• Her and her husband work full time and share one car. They both commute to work in the opposite direction to any school and so it would not be possible to drive Z to a school.
• She does not know how they will get Z to school without support from the Council.
16. The Senior Officer Review Panel considered the information Ms X had supplied. It also considered Ms X and her husband’s income. It noted Ms X had not listed School B as one of the preferred schools for Z to attend and if she had listed this school, Z would have been given a place due to it being their nearest school. It also noted Ms X had purchased a spare seat on the school transport for Z to use in the meantime however, Ms X said the scheme was not reliable and not a long-term solution.
17. The Senior Officer Review Panel did not uphold the review and found there were no sufficient compelling circumstances where it would provide free school transport to Z on a discretionary basis. The Panel said Ms X had access to the Council’s website where Ms X would have been able to find out School B was their closest school. The Panel said Ms X had not provided any information which showed it would be difficult for her to finance Z’s school transport herself. The Panel agreed, after considering all the information it had, to provide Z a guaranteed seat under its spare seat scheme on the school transport vehicle to School A. This meant Ms X would have to apply each year under the spare seat scheme and the Council would assess demand from students who were eligible for free transport and then offer Z a guaranteed seat for the year. Ms X would have to pay a fee, however, the Council would contribute towards the cost of the seat.
18. Ms X was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Senior Officer Review Panel and appealed its decision. An appeal hearing took place with a panel of County Councillors, a representative from the Council and Ms X’s husband. The Panel considered the Senior Officer Review Panel’s decision and Ms X’s husband’s reasons why the decision was not fair. During the hearing, the Council representative explained the Council had changed the mapping system it used to measure the distance but they could not confirm the date this happened. Ms X’s husband said the Council had not informed them of this change. The Council representative said the Council had offered Ms X and her husband’s older child, Y, free school transport in error but it allowed the provision to remain as it had already committed to it. The Panel referred to the Council’s offer of giving Z a guaranteed seat under its spare seat scheme and subsiding the cost of it. Ms X’s husband said he and Ms X were reassured with the guaranteed seat as they were initially worried they might lose their seat.
19. Following the appeal hearing, the Council informed Ms X of the Appeal Panel’s decision. It said the Appeal Panel had considered all the information provided by Ms X and her husband and the Council and it agreed with the Senior Officer Review Panel that there were insufficient extenuating circumstances to offer Z free school transport to School A.

Back to top

Findings

20. The law does not specify how a council should determine which is the nearest school. The Council measures the shortest distance from the home to school and then considers if there is a suitable walking route within the statutory walking distance. The Council is entitled to take this approach.
21. Ms X and her husband said they were not aware School B was their nearest school and not School A given their eldest child attended School A and received free school transport. The Council’s website provides its Home to School Transport policy which explains how it calculates the nearest school for school transport purposes. Parents are also able to check on the Council’s website where the nearest school is when they apply for their child to attend a school. The Council was not at fault.
22. In addition, the Council said it made an error in giving Ms X’s older child free school transport. The Council does not have to give Ms X’s younger child free school transport because it has given it to her older child. This is in line with the Council’s policy.
23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the panel reached its decision.
24. The Council refused Ms X’s application in line with the guidance and its policy. As Ms X’s child was not attending their nearest school, they were not eligible for free school transport. The Council also considered Ms X and her family’s circumstances which she had listed in her application form and it could not establish sufficient extenuating circumstances where it could use its discretion to offer free school transport. There was no fault in the way the Senior Officer Review Panel and the Appeal Panel considered Ms X’s appeal. It considered the family’s circumstances and has given Ms X’s child a guaranteed seat under its spare seat scheme and the Council is subsiding the cost of the seat.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have now completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman