Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her son, F, post-16 home to college transport. The Council considered Mrs X’s appeal and the information she provided in line with relevant guidance in making its decision and was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her son, F, post-16 home to college transport. Mrs X said this means F cannot attend the college named in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan which will cause him a loss of educational opportunity.

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 spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
5. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan

7. Children with complex needs may require an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is a legal document which sets out a description of a child's needs (what he or she can and cannot do). It says what needs to be done to meet those needs by education, health and social care. This can include support needed in school.
8. Councils are responsible for making sure all the arrangements set out in in the EHC Plan are put in place.

Post-16 transport travel and support for people of sixth form age

9. The law on education transport is set out in the Education Act 1996. The Government also issued statutory guidance in January 2019 entitled ‘Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training’ which details a council’s duties to adult learners and pupils of sixth form age. The Act does not impose a duty for councils to arrange transport for pupils once they reach sixth form age. Councils have discretion to decide what transport arrangements are necessary to help young people access education.
10. Councils must publish a statement setting out the transport arrangements they consider necessary to help students of sixth form age to attend education or training. The statement must set out the arrangements the council proposes to make for young people with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities
11. In considering what arrangements it is necessary to make for sixth form pupils, the council must have regard to:
• the needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practicable to attend an education establishment if no arrangements were made;
• the distances, and journey times, between the homes of people of sixth form age in their area and education establishments suitable to their needs.
• the transport needs for sixth form pupils with special educational needs or disability. There is no automatic entitlement to transport to an institution named in an Education, Health and Care Plan.

The Council’s policy

12. The policy explains that when young people with SEN and disabilities reach 16 years of age, they do not automatically get free school transport in the way younger children are entitled to. The guidance explains the Council will assess the application and decide whether to provide transport or financial support taking into account all relevant matters on the basis of evidence provided.
13. Some of the criteria the panel considers in deciding whether to award transport includes:
• The nature of the journey including distance, journey time and whether the student could be reasonably accompanied or make use of public ‘transport.
• The parent/carer network and whether it is reasonable for them to accompany the student.
• The student’s SEN and whether independent travel is appropriate.
• The financial circumstances of the family and the potential impact if the application is declined.
• Any other relevant factors provided.

What happened

14. Mrs X has a son, F, who in 2021 was 16 years old and due to begin post-16 education from September 2021 onwards. F has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because of learning difficulties. His EHC Plan named two colleges (A and B) where F would split his time. College A was 8 miles north of F’s home in a rural location and college B was 8 miles south with better transport links.
15. In April 2021 Mrs X applied to the Council for post-16 home to college transport for F. Mrs X’s application explained the family lived in a rural location which was 8 miles away from college A with no public transport. Mrs X said she and her husband, Mr X, ran a business from home which did not allow them to leave the premises to take F themselves. She said the transport was only required to take F to college A in the mornings and that he could manage travel to college B using public transport.
16. The Council considered Mrs X’s application but informed her the transport panel had declined her request. The panel decided it was reasonable for either Mr or Mrs X to leave the business to drop F off either at college A or an appropriate bus stop.
17. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. She said she and Mr X were unable to transport F to college A due to the nature of their work and business. Mrs X said she had considered all financial alternatives however they would put additional strain on the family’s finances. Mrs X offered to contribute over £600 a year towards the cost of the transport. Mrs X said F needed to attend college A due to his learning difficulties and there was no other alternative college nearby.
18. The transport panel considered Mrs X’s appeal but again decided not to award F with transport from home to college A. The Council wrote to Mrs X informing her of its decision. That letter told Mrs X the panel had considered Mrs X’s information, the rural location F lived and the lack of public transport. It also considered that F was capable of independent travel and his SEN did not prevent this. The panel decided Mr and Mrs X’s work commitments was something all working parents have to resolve and it expected families to make necessary arrangements. The panel decided Mr and Mrs X had sufficient finances to cover F’s transport costs themselves.
19. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision and complained to us. She said the Council had failed to consider relevant statutory guidance in making its decision. Specifically:
• That F could not access education at college A if no transport arrangements were put in place
• The Council’s responsibility to maintain F’s EHC Plan.
• The distance from home to college A and how reasonable it was for F to access it independently and safely.
• The journey time would exceed 75 minutes if F was forced to use public transport which would include three changes and meant he would arrive late.

Mrs X said without transport F could not attend college A and therefore would not meet his educational potential.

My findings

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question, or give an opinion on whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of how much a complainant disagrees with the decision.
21. There is no legal obligation for a council to provide post-16 home to college transport. The decision is a discretionary one however a council must consider individual circumstances as outlined in the statutory guidance.
22. Records show F was capable of independent travel and therefore his SEN was not a factor in the Council’s decision making. The Council’s duty in relation to F’s EHC Plan was to ensure the provision was available and transport itself is not an educational provision. In making its decision the Council considered F’s individual circumstances, the rural location of his home and location and distance of college A. The records show the Council also considered Mr and Mrs X’s work commitments and information about their finances.
23. The Council ‘s consideration of Mrs X’s application and appeal was in line with relevant guidance and there was no fault in how it reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I completed my investigation because of I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council handled Mrs X’s school transport appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman