Bracknell Forest Council (22 011 885)

Category : Education > School transport

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 09 Feb 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award home to school transport. It is unlikely we can find fault.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, says the Council should provide home to school transport for her child, B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

  1. Miss X has disabilities which affect her mobility. She has a mobility scooter to use when she needs it. Miss X’s child, B, is in year one at their local primary school. It is less than a mile from her home. Miss X says that her mobility scooter has broken and she is unable to walk B to school. Her mother has been coming to pick B up and drive them to school. But this has made her late for work.
  2. Miss X applied to the Council for home to school transport. The Council refused and she appealed. The Council considered her appeal within its home to school transport process. It still refused the application. It said B was not an eligible child and that whilst they were sympathetic to the problems the family faced, it was not a case which warranted the home to school transport.
  3. Miss X says her scooter is broken. The Council offered to repair the scooter, but this has not been possible to do. It says there are issues with how the damage occurred and the warranty on the scooter. Miss X says B’s father cannot assist with home to school transport because he is caring for her father.

Analysis

  1. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant 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. ‘Eligible children’ include:
    • children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
    • children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
    • children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
    • children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)
  2. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. (Home to School transport guidance July 2014 paragraphs 54-55)
  3. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to provide home to school transport. There is no evidence it has not properly considered the application or appeal. It’s decision letter shows it considered its discretion. The home to school transport policies are based on the children’s needs not the parents.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings