Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s refusal to provide free school travel for her child to attend school which is some distance from their house. We have not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that Suffolk County Council (the Council) unreasonably refused to provide free transport for her daughter to attend school. This has caused her significant distress and financial hardship.

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 an organisation’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 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms B and the Council 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

5. The Education Act 1996 says councils must provide free home to school transport for eligible children of statutory school age to qualifying schools.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Government guidance

8. The Government issued statutory guidance in 2014, ‘Home-to-school travel and transport statutory guidance’ which recommends councils have a two stage appeal process for parents who wish to challenge a decision about their child’s eligibility for travel support:

• Stage 1: review by a senior officer;
• Stage 2: review by an independent appeal panel.

9. The guidance says a parent can challenge a decision on the home to school travel application on the basis of entitlement, distance measurement, route safety and consideration of exceptional circumstances. The parent can challenge the officer’s decision and request a review by an appeal panel.
10. The guidance says the independent appeal panel should consider “written and verbal representations from both the parent and officers involved in the case”. Appeal panel members must be independent of the original decision-making process but do not have to be independent of the council.

The Council’s appeals process

11. An unsuccessful applicant can challenge a decision by first requesting a review. This will be considered by a senior officer within 20 working days of the request. If the applicant remains dissatisfied, they can appeal. The Council operates two appeal panels:

Travel officer panel

12. This panel is made up of officers from Children and Young People’s Services and the Passenger Transport Team who were not involved in the original decision-making process. It hears appeals on any ground apart for safety. It particularly looks at cases where an applicant believes they have exceptional circumstances and do not wish to make verbal representations.

Education Transport Appeals Committee

13. This is a Committee of three elected councillors which hears appeals about safety issues and appeals where an applicant wishes to make verbal representations.

What happened

14. Ms B and her two children moved to Suffolk in 2020. In November 2020 Ms B applied for a school place for her youngest child. The application form said:

“All children living in Suffolk who will be starting at a new school will be eligible for SCC funded school travel when they meet the statutory walking distance criteria from their home to the nearest suitable school that would have had a place available for them.”

15. She named three schools but did not put the nearest school as her first preference. The Council awarded a place at the first choice school which was over 7 miles from her home. Her eldest child (17 years old) was already attending this school.
16. In March 2021 she applied for school transport. The Council refused the application as she had not applied to the nearest suitable school with places available. She requested a review.
17. The Council upheld its decision that she was not eligible for funded travel because her child would not be attending the nearest suitable school with places available. It said she could apply for a spare seat at a cost of £310 per term. It gave her the option to appeal further. It explained that if she wished to make a verbal representation she could appeal to the Education Transport Panel, otherwise the Transport Officer Panel would hear it.
18. Ms B appealed saying she applied to three schools and was only accepted by one school, so she accepted that one. She said her older child was already attending the school and it was easier as a single parent for them both to attend the same school. The stress of taking one to a different school would affect her mental health.
19. Ms B did not request verbal representations, so the case was heard by the Officer Transport Panel on 11 May 2021. It consisted of three officers unconnected to Ms B’s case. The Panel did not consider there were any exceptional reasons to award a funded travel place and felt the choice of the school was one of parental preference. The Panel unanimously refused the appeal.
20. Ms B applied again in December 2021 but was refused. She complained to us. In February 2022 her child got a place on the bus, but Ms B had to pay the termly fee of £310.

Analysis

21. I have not identified any fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms B’s application and appeal for funded school travel for her daughter. The application form explained that it would only fund school travel if the child was attending the nearest school with places available. But Ms B applied for a school further away as that was the school her older daughter was attending. That was an understandable decision, but it meant she would not be eligible for free school travel.
22. I am not certain Ms B understood the implication of her school choice when she applied but that was not due to fault by the Council. Ms B could have asked the Council to explain the situation if she was unclear.
23. I also have not found fault with the way it considered her appeal. It operated a two stage procedure in accordance with the guidance and as Ms B did not want to make verbal representations the Transport Officer Panel considered the case. The Council specifically checked before the case was heard whether she wished to make representations. Although the Panel consisted of officers, none of the three voting members of the panel had dealt with Ms B’s original application. I consider this arrangement accords with the requirements of the guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Ms B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman