Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about home to school transport as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, says the Council has failed to properly consider her application for home to school transport.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the Council should provide home to school transport for her child to get to primary school. They live around half a mile from the school. Ms X says hers and her child’s disabilities mean they cannot walk that distance.
6. 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. The relevant 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. ‘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)
7. Ms X’s case does not fall into one of these eligibility criteria. The Council’s policy also says if parents have a disability that prevents them from walking their child to school, the Council may provide travel assistance to the child. This may happen even if they live within the statutory walking distance. It was under this part of the policy which Ms X’s case fell.
8. The Council rejected her application and she appealed.
9. 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)
10. It recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:
• Stage 1: A senior officer review within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision. The senior officer should send the parent a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review. This should include the nature of the decision; how the review was conducted; what was taken into account; the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage 2; and
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request an independent appeal panel should consider written and verbal representations. It should provide a detailed decision. This should set out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about appealing to us. (Annex 2 of the guidance)
11. The Council carried out a stage one and two. Ms X disagreed with its decision and complained to us. We upheld her complaint because it was not clear the Council had carried out stage two properly. It had used officers for the appeal with previous involvement in the case. And it was not clear the Council had considered Ms X’s disability. The Council agreed to hold a new stage two.
12. The Council’s new stage two was held in May. We confirmed it had satisfied the remedy on the previous case and therefore this appeal had been independent. Three officers who had not been involved in the case before, considered the appeal.
13. From the appeal decision letter, it is clear the appeal considered Ms X’s disabilities. It decided that as she received PiP, the Council should not provide home to school transport. The PiP is paid to assist people with mobility difficulties in their lives. It said the PiP covered Ms X’s parental duty to get her child to school.
14. Ms X says the Council did not consider her disability.
15. It is unlikely we would find fault in the appeal panel’s decision. It is entitled to reach the view it has.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman