Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to give Mr B the opportunity to verbally present his views to the panel considering his travel assistance application for his grandson. The Council has agreed to reconvene the panel and consider the case again, with Mr B present if he wishes.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council refused to provide travel assistance to his grandson, whom I refer to as C, to help him get to college.
2. C has autism and consequently, according to Mr B, cannot use public transport. Mr B has been driving him to and from college, but as the college is in a different city this is costing him a lot of money in fuel. It is also causing Mr B to lose income, as he is self-employed and the driving takes around three hours out of his day.
3. Mr B says the Council agreed to provide funding for alternative transport but then reneged on its agreement, saying C’s college provides £65 each month towards transport costs. Mr B says this does not even cover three days’ costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Guidance

7. The Council’s post-16 transport policy says it does not provide direct help to most 16-18 year olds, because it pays an annual £8.5m levy to the regional public transport provider which subsidises travel for young people. It says this subsidised transport network ensures most students can access their course.
8. Students who are unable to travel independently to their course, and who cannot be taken by a family member or carer, can apply for assistance from the Council.
9. In considering an application for travel assistance, the Council will allow the student to exercise ‘reasonable’ choice in deciding where to attend. This means they can go somewhere which is not the closest establishment to where they live “if it makes sense to do so”.
10. But, if a suitable nearer institution offers a similar course, and the Council would not offer assistance for the student to travel to the nearer course, it will not offer it to travel to the further one.
11. An applicant for travel assistance can appeal against the Council’s decision, and the appeal will be considered by an independent panel at, potentially, two stages. At both stages the appellant can request the opportunity to attend the panel meeting and make their case verbally.
12. In addition to support offered by the Council, the Government offers a bursary fund to help with education-related costs for those aged 16 to 19, in both ‘vulnerable’ and ‘discretionary’ (i.e. non-vulnerable) categories. The discretionary support offered to non-vulnerable students by this scheme is decided by each educational establishment.

What happened

13. Mr B applied for travel assistance for C in July 2021. He said C could not travel to college on public transport, and it was too far to walk. He said C needed a vehicle to take him there.
14. The Council completed a ‘travel options assessment’. It noted that:
• C has autism, but no Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). His application for one was refused in 2016.
• A local college delivers the same course as the one he does at his chosen college (his chosen college is 16 miles away).
• Although Mr B does not think C could be trained to use public transport, C’s former school feels his condition is mild and he should be able to travel independently.
15. The Council refused Mr B’s application. It said C was not eligible for travel assistance. It said most students can get to college on the bus and, if financial help was needed, this could be accessed (through college) from the national bursary scheme.
16. Mr B appealed this decision, and provided two letters about C’s condition (from a consultant and an autism charity). Neither letter said anything about C’s ability to travel independently.
17. The Council’s appeal panel rejected Mr B’s appeal. It noted C’s lack of EHCP, and said there was not enough evidence to justify overturning the original refusal.
18. In early September, Mr B submitted a stage 2 appeal. He said assistance would only be needed in the mornings, as another family member may be able to bring C home.
19. The Council convened a ‘mini-panel’ which considered Mr B’s appeal, without
    Mr B present, in advance of the main stage 2 hearing. The panel members noted that students should be allowed an element of choice in where they studied, but that provision of travel assistance to C would be “an inefficient use of public funds”.
20. The Council then prepared a statement to be presented to the stage 2 appeal panel. The statement repeated the findings of the Council’s July 2021 travel options assessment. It also said there was not enough recent medical evidence about C’s condition. The Council shared this statement with Mr B.
21. The stage 2 panel hearing was held, with Mr B present, on 20 October. The following day, the Council wrote to Mr B and said there were exceptional circumstances in C’s case which justified some travel assistance. However, it said Mr B should first apply, through college, to the national bursary scheme to see if C was eligible for any help. It said the panel would then review the case.
22. Shortly after this, C’s college told the Council that C was eligible for its ‘discretionary bursary’, which entitled him to free meals, £65.50 a month towards travel support, and free educational equipment and trips.
23. Having received this information, the Council’s school transport department offered, in an internal email to the officer arranging the appeal panel, to arrange travel assistance for C four mornings a week.
24. The panel then met again to discuss Mr B’s appeal. This time Mr B was neither present nor, it appears, invited. The panel discussed the new information from college and decided the bursary money, combined with C’s Disability Living Allowance (which is given to people who need help getting around), was enough to cover transport for four mornings a week.
25. The Council wrote to Mr B and said it would offer no travel assistance to C. The officer arranging the appeal panel offered a further hearing to Mr B so he could discuss this with the panel members – to which Mr B agreed. However, the Chair of the panel refused to hold a further hearing.

My findings

26. Although the Council’s power to provide direct travel assistance to students aged 16-18 is, to a degree, discretionary, it must do this if it is necessary to ensure a student can attend their course.
27. The Council, in C’s case, clearly felt he needed some additional support to get to college. The disagreement with Mr B is about how much support C needed.
28. The Council’s policy allows an appellant to attend the appeal panel hearings if they wish, so they can put their views forward verbally. The Council allowed this for the main hearings at stages 1 and 2 of Mr B’s appeal, but, at the ultimate meeting between panel members at which the final decision was made, Mr B was not invited.
29. This final meeting – at which the panel members considered new information and made a decision – was, in effect, another hearing. The panel made its final decision about the adequacy of C’s existing travel funding without Mr B being able to explain why, in his view, the funding was not adequate. This approach went against the requirements of the Council’s policy.
30. I acknowledge that the officer arranging the appeal panels attempted, unsuccessfully, to arrange a further hearing for Mr B to attend. Nonetheless, Mr B was denied the opportunity to present his case to the panel before it made its final decision. This was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council has agreed to reconvene a stage 2 appeal hearing to consider C’s travel assistance application. It has agreed to ensure that Mr B is given an opportunity to attend the hearing if he wishes.
32. The Council has agreed to do this within four weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

33. The Council was at fault for failing to give Mr B the opportunity to verbally present his views to the panel considering his travel assistance application for C. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman