Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide taxis to take Ms M’s daughter, G, to school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains the Council will not provide taxis to take her daughter, G, to school.

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:
• information provided by Ms M;
• information provided by the Council, including the papers from Ms M’s appeal against the Council’s decision.
5. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms M’s daughter, G, attends a secondary school approximately five miles from her home. G has autism and suffers from anxiety. Ms M says G is unable to travel to school by bus, so she has been paying for taxis. Ms M asked the Council to arrange transport as she is struggling with the cost.
7. The Council refused. The Council said there were other schools G could attend within walking distance of Ms M’s home.
8. Ms M appealed the Council’s decision. She says G’s school is putting in extra support to help G and she does not think she should have to move.
9. Ms M’s appeal was unsuccessful. Ms M then complained to the Ombudsman.

Home to school transport

10. Councils have a duty to provide free home to school transport for eligible children to qualifying schools. (Education Act 1996, section 508B)
11. Eligible children are children of compulsory school age who:
• cannot walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or a mobility problem; or
• 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)
12. 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))
13. The nearest 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.
14. There are different criteria for children from low income families.

Consideration

15. The Ombudsman does not decide whether Ms M’s daughter is eligible for free home to school transport. This is the Council’s job. My job is to check the Council made its decision properly. I check the Council considered all relevant information.
16. The crux of Ms M’s complaint is whether G attends the nearest suitable school. Ms M believes she does. The Council does not.
17. G attends a school in a neighbouring council area. She was allocated a place following a successful appeal. Ms M chose the school because many of G’s friends from primary school were going there. She said G had been bullied in the past. She said G is struggling at school, but the school is providing additional support. The school said it did not think it was in G’s interests to move to a new school.
18. Ms M explained that G’s autism and anxiety mean she is unable to travel on the school bus, so she is taking G to school by taxi.
19. The minutes of the appeal hearing say the Council considered all of the information Ms M provided. The Council said there were at least four schools within walking distance of Ms M’s home with places available where G could receive a suitable education.
20. Although the minutes of the appeal hearing are brief, I am satisfied the panel considered all the information Ms M provided. G is currently receiving additional support in a mainstream school. There are four other mainstream schools she could attend where similar support could be provided. These schools are in walking distance of Ms M’s home, so if G were to attend, the anxiety she faces using the school bus would not be a problem.
21. I am satisfied the appeal panel properly considered Ms M’s request for school transport. The Ombudsman cannot question decision made without fault.

Other matters

22. Since Ms M made her complaint, the Council has agreed to assess G for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. An EHC Plan describes a young person’s special educational needs and the provision required to meet them. It may also specify the school they should attend. If it does, this can help deciding whether they are eligible for free school transport.
23. If the Council agrees to issue an EHC Plan, Ms M can ask the Council to consider G’s transport needs again.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide free school transport for Ms M’s daughter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman