Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s application for school transport. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council refused his application for school transport.
2. He is unhappy with his dealings with the Council, and in particular the fact he was told his application had been approved only to be told that was a mistake. He believes the Council is conducting a ‘cover up’.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered information provided by Mr F and information provided by the Council, including all the papers from Mr F’s appeal.
6. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr F secured a place for his son at his first-choice secondary school. The school is in a neighbouring council area (as are all three nearest secondary schools to Mr F’s home). Mr F’s son started secondary school in September 2022. Mr F’s application for free home-to-school transport, and his subsequent appeal, were unsuccessful.

Home to school transport: the law

8. Councils have a duty to provide free home to school transport for eligible children to qualifying schools. (Education Act 1996, section 508B)
9. 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. (Education Act 1996, Schedule 35B)
10. 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))
11. 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.

The Council’s school transport policy

12. The Council’s school transport policy is explained in the booklet, “Education in Hartlepool September 2022”. All parents are advised to consult the booklet when applying for school places.
13. It says travel assistance will be provided free of charge for pupils of primary and secondary age who live in the Borough and must travel more than the statutory walking distance to their nearest suitable school.
14. It says distance is measured between the front entrance of the home and the nearest gate of the school using the shortest route a child can walk, accompanied if necessary, with reasonable safety. The Council uses an electronic mapping system.
15. There are three telephone numbers listed for queries about school transport.
16. The Council has a two-stage appeals process for anyone who wants to challenge a decision. The first stage is a review by a senior officer. The second stage is an appeal to a panel of three elected members.

Mr F’s appeal

17. The Council refused Mr F’s application because his son does not attend the nearest suitable school.
18. Mr F appealed at both stages of the Council’s appeals process. He said:
• the Council did not provide parents with enough information about school transport to make informed choices when applying for school places;
• he disagreed with the Council’s choice and measurement of routes; and
• his son had been bullied by children who now attend the nearest school.
19. Mr F raised a number of other matters in his appeal, but these were not relevant to the decision the Council must make so I have not listed them here.
20. At the second stage, Mr F had an opportunity to present his case to a panel of three elected members. The panel considered all the papers and the case made by Mr F. They were satisfied the Council had applied its policy correctly, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify making an exception for Mr F’s son. Mr F complains to the Ombudsman that it is not fair for members of the Council to consider appeals.

Consideration

21. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Mr F’s son. This is the Council’s job. My role is to check the Council made its decision properly.
22. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council, and the appeal panel, properly considered Mr F’s application. There is no fault in the decision not to provide transport. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
23. I am satisfied the booklet, “Education in Hartlepool” provides parents with enough information to make informed choices when applying for school places. The booklet makes it clear that transport is only available in certain circumstances, and parents with questions can telephone the Council for further information before applying for places.
24. Mr F objects to the routes measured by the Council since, among other problems, they include a main road with no pavements. At issue is how the Council decides which school is nearest, not the route itself, since the measurement is used – legitimately – to restrict eligibility for school transport. It is important the same method is used for every application, and the way the route is measured is published in advance. The Council’s approach fulfils these criteria.
25. Mr F had an opportunity to tell the Panel about the bullying, but they were not persuaded to make an exception to the Council’s transport policy.
26. Mr F does not consider it is fair for elected members to sit on the Panel since they make decisions about the Council’s budget.
27. Government guidance says appeal panel members should be independent of the original decision making process but they are not required to be independent of the Council. They should be suitably experienced (at the discretion of the Council), to ensure a balance is achieved between meeting the needs of the parents and the Council. (Home to school travel and transport guidance. Statutory guidance for local authorities. Department for Education, July 2014)
28. I am satisfied the Panel of elected members fulfilled these criteria.
29. Mr F alleges the Council conducted a ‘cover-up’ after it mistakenly told him his application had been approved. While it is regrettable the Council mistakenly told Mr F his application had been approved, his allegation there was a cover-up is unfounded.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s application for free home-to-school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman