Summary: Mr Y complained the Council unreasonably refused his application for a free school travel pass for his daughter. We found fault in how the Council consider his application. But this fault did not alter the outcome of Mr Y’s application and so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr Y, says the Council unreasonably refused his application and appeal for a free school travel pass for his daughter (B). Mr Y says the Council’s decision means B has a long and unsafe journey to school which is affecting her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Mr Y and considered information he provided.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response, its Home to School travel policy and the relevant legislation and national guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision on the complaint with Mr Y and the Council and invited them to comment.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils must provide free home to school transport for eligible children of compulsory school age to their qualifying schools (Education Act 1996. 508B (1) and Schedule 35B)
8. Eligible Children include those who:

• Live beyond the statutory walking distance from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• Receive free school meals, or whose parents receive the maximum Working Tax Credit, for the transport to one of the three nearest schools up to a distance of six miles.

9. The qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provide education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational requirements the child may have.
10. Councils also have the discretion to offer transport where they consider it necessary to help ensure the child attends school.

The Council’s Policy

11. The Council’s school transport policy (the policy) explains who may qualify for transport under the legal criteria.
12. It says the following criteria must all be met to qualify for free transport for children whose parent expressed a preference for a secondary school on the basis of religion or belief:

• Children attending secondary school who meet the low income criteria
• the journey regularly exceeds 75 minutes for a child or young person aged 8 or older
• the school is between 2 and 15 miles from home
• they are attending the nearest suitable school on the grounds of religion or belief

13. It says in general the Council is not obliged to pay the transport costs for a child, if a nearer school can meet the child’s needs but the parent(s) expresses a preference for a school which is further away and beyond reasonable walking distance. If this were the case the parent(s) would be expected to pay the cost of travel.

Home-to-school travel and transport statutory guidance, Suitability of arrangements, paragraph 34

14. As a general guide, transport arrangements should not require a child to make several changes of public transport resulting in an unreasonably long journey time. Best practice suggests that the maximum each way journey for a child of secondary schools age is 75 minutes, but these should be regarded as the maximum.

What happened

15. Mr Y applied for a secondary school place for his daughter, B, for September 2022. He expressed a preference for his daughter to attend a single sex school because of their religious beliefs. B was offered a place at their fourth preference school (School 1), which is 5.1 miles from her home.
16. In February 2022 B was referred for counselling by the Child Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) for help with anxiety and panic attacks.
17. In March 2022 Mr Y applied for free home to school travel pass for B as it would take 45 minutes each way to travel to School 1.
18. The Council rejected the application because the travel time did not exceed 75 minutes each way. It also said B was not going to her nearest qualifying school. It said a co-educational school (School 2) and a single sex school of an opposing faith (School 3) were closer.
19. Mr Y appealed against the decision. He said the route used by the Council was unsafe because it included walking over an unlit bridge where attacks had taken place. He also said the Council’s calculation the route took 48 minutes was wrong as it did not include walking from the nearest bus stop to the school. He said the journey was 54 minutes.
20. He also said that B was receiving support from CAMHS and that his application meets all the criteria required in the Council’s policy to have a travel pass to his preferred school on the basis of religion. Mr Y did not provide any supporting evidence.
21. The Council rejected Mr B’s appeal. It said:

• it used the postcode of B’s home and the name of School 1 to calculate the travel time and so the distance time was correct.
• the Council’s policy says it will offer a free travel pass if the journey time from home to school exceeds 75 minutes each way. B’s journey does not meet this criterion.
• B is not attending her nearest qualifying school as School 2 and School 3 were closer.
• The application did not meet all the criteria for receiving a free travel pass on the basis of preference for a secondary school on religious grounds because the journey time does not exceed 75 minutes and Mr Y does not meet the low income criteria.
• No evidence was provided explaining how B receiving CAHMS support impacts her ability to travel to School 1 nor does its policy provide criteria for travel passes to issued because of mental health grounds.

22. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s decision and appealed to its Appeals Panel. He said its policy:

• does not specify the 75 minute travel time is each way and so is open to interpretation
• has safety as a criterion for receiving a free travel pass on low income grounds and so route safety should be considered.

He said School 3 is religious school of a different faith to his and attendance at a school of an opposing faith is against his religion. Therefore, it is not a qualifying school. He reiterated concerns about the safety of the route used by the Council and about the impact on his daughter’s mental health. He said supporting evidence for both matters could be obtained from B’s school.

23. The Appeals Panel rejected Mr Y’s appeal. It said that B could travel by bus to school 1 by two routes which do not exceed the 75 minutes set out in its policy. One bus route avoids the bridge Mr Y says is unsafe.
24. It said that Mr Y’s application did not meet the low-income criteria to receive transport on the grounds of religious preference. It also said that School 1 was not the nearest qualifying school. It said School 2 and School 3 were closer qualifying schools with places.

Finding

25. The Council’s policy sets out four criteria that must all be met for a child whose parents have expressed a preference for a secondary school on religious grounds to qualify for a free travel pass.
26. The first criterion is the school the child is travelling to is between 2 and 15 miles from their home. B’s application meets this criterion as it is 5.1 miles from her home.
27. The second criterion is the child is attending the nearest suitable school of the grounds of religion or belief. The appeal panel found there were two qualifying schools closer to Mr Y’s home and so the application did not meet this criterion. I disagree. The first school mentioned in its decision, School 2, is a co-educational school. The second, School 3, is of an opposing faith.
28. Furthermore I asked the Council to confirm if B would have been awarded a place in either of the two other single sex non faith schools closer to her home than School 1 and to which Mr Y did not apply. It said B would not have been awarded a place at either school. I note the appeal panel did not consider if B would have received a place at either of these schools when it decided there were closer qualifying schools.
29. For the above reasons I do not consider the appeal panel properly considered the facts and I question the merits of its view on that School 1 was not the nearest qualifying school.
30. The third criterion is the journey to the school must regularly exceed 75 minutes. The Council’s policy does not stipulate if the journey time is one way or for both legs combined and so, I consider the policy is unclear. This is fault by the Council. When a policy is unclear it is open to different interpretations and maybe applied inconsistently.
31. Although I found fault in the wording of the Council’s policy I do not consider it altered the outcome of Mr Y’s appeal. Government guidance suggests council’s use a maximum travel time of 75 minutes each way when deciding requests for school travel passes. The Council applied this test to Mr Y’s appeal.
32. I note Mr Y says one route uses an unlit bridge and he feels this is unsafe. The appeal panel considered this but was not provided with any supporting evidence from Mr Y. Moreover, there is an alternative route which avoids the bridge and is within the 75 minute travel time. I consider this matter was properly considered by the panel.
33. The final criterion is that applicants must meet the low income criteria of its policy. Mr Y’s application did not say B is entitled to free school meals or that he receives working tax credit at the maximum rate. He does not therefore meet this criterion.
34. Although I have found fault with the wording of the Council’s policy and how its appeal panel consider the issue the nearest qualifying school, I do not consider this has altered the outcome of Mr Y’s application. This is because he does not meet the low income criterion and so whether he meets the other criterion or not, his application would not be successful as all four criterion must be meet.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within in two months of my decision the Council will review its school transport policy to ensure that it clarifies the 75-minute journey time referred to is for a one-way journey and not for both legs of the journey combined. It will provide a memo to all staff considering applications and appeals for free school travel passes to make sure they are applying the 75-minute journey time and the nearest qualifying school criterion correctly.
36. Within four weeks for my decision, the Council will apologise to Mr Y for the confusion caused by the fault we found, and the avoidable time and trouble caused to him pursuing his complaint.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. For the reasons explained in the Finding section, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman