Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for school transport for her son. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council’s review committee considered her appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council told her that her son would get free school transport. However, her application was refused and refused again at appeal. She says the Council failed to consider her son’s health issues. She also says the walking route is “totally unsafe”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

Transport for eligible children to the nearest suitable school

5. The Department for Education issued Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance (the statutory guidance) in July 2014. (The Education Act 1996 sections 508 and 509, and part 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006)
6. Councils are required to make travel arrangements and provide free transport for “eligible children” of compulsory school age to attend their nearest suitable school. Eligible children are defined in Schedule 35B of the Education Act 1996 and include:
• children living outside “statutory walking distance” from the school (two miles for children aged under eight, three miles for children between eight and 16).
• children entitled to free school meals, or whose parents are in receipt of their maximum level of working tax credit if the school is between two and six miles (aged 11 to 16 and for transport to one of their three nearest qualifying schools).
7. Councils can also provide transport or meet the cost of transport on a discretionary basis for children who do not meet the eligibility criteria. The guidance recognises that an authority will need to balance demands against their funding priorities.

What happened

8. In the past, the Council provided free school transport from the village where Mrs X lives, which I shall call ‘A’, to the nearest school, which I shall call ‘B’. This is because, although B is within three miles of A, the previous Council travel team considered the walking route from A to B was unsafe.
9. However, the Council says the current team have reassessed the walking route which is along a public right of way. It says following safety assessments it considers the route available and safe. The Council’s Countryside Access Team have also visited the route and found it safe and do not consider it to pose a risk of harm.
10. The Council says it has identified three safe walking routes from A to B with safe crossings to access bus stops. Using public transport, the travel time to school is between fifty and sixty minutes. This is within the Government guidelines of a seventy-five-minute travel time for secondary school children. The walking route via the public right of way is also within the guidelines.
11. Mrs X says she was told before applying for a place at B, her son would get free school transport. However, as he lives less than three miles from the school he is not eligible. The Council refused her application. Following a review of the decision by a senior officer who upheld the decision, Mrs X appealed to the Council’s Independent Review Panel.
12. The Council says the Council considered:
• The historical arrangements for travel between A and B
• Documents from a parent group on the withdrawal of provision of transport from A to B
• Documents from the school travel team on Council policy
• Letters from parents
• Route safety assessments and photographs
• A PowerPoint for a parent meeting in April 2023; and
• Letters and responses to freedom of information requests
13. I understand Mrs X has two children attending different schools. She says it is difficult to get both children to and from school due to work commitments. Also, her son has asthma, and she is concerned he may suffer an attack while walking to school.
14. The Council also considered the information from Mrs X in her appeal noting:
• they live less than two miles from the school
• her son has no mobility issues or special educational needs
• if Mrs X is concerned that her son may have an asthma attack when walking to or from school, it is for the parents to decide whether an adult should accompany him; and
• the family have no extended rights coming from a low income.
15. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Mrs X’s son. The Ombudsman checks the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question Council decisions made without fault, no matter how strongly Mrs X disagrees.
16. In deciding whether a child can reasonably be expected to walk to school, the question is whether they can do so if accompanied, and whether it is reasonable to expect a parent to accompany them.
17. The Statutory Guidance says, “when considering whether a child’s parent can reasonably be expected to accompany the child on the journey to school a range of factors may need to be taken into account, such as the age of the child and whether one would ordinarily expect a child of that age to be accompanied.” “The general expectation is that a child will be accompanied by a parent where necessary, unless there is a good reason why it is not reasonable to expect the parent to do so.”
18. The Guidance also says the “general expectation is that the parent will accompany them or make other suitable arrangements for their journey to and from school. A child will not normally be eligible solely because their parents work commitments or caring responsibilities mean they are unable to accompany their child themselves, but local authorities must act reasonably in the performance of their functions.” And

“ Reasons such as the parent’s working pattern or the fact they have children attending more than one school, on their own will not normally be considered good reasons for a parent being able to accompany their child. These apply to many parents, and, in most circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the parent to make suitable arrangements to fulfil their various responsibilities (for example, their responsibilities as an employee and as a parent).”

19. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council decision was made. Mrs X does not meet the criteria for free transport as she does not live more than three miles from her son’s school.
20. The Council has considered Mrs X’s circumstances as set out in the appeal documents and decided they do not justify providing free transport on a discretionary basis. This is a decision the committee is entitled to reach..
21. Having considered all the relevant information in this case, I am satisfied that the Council followed its policy, government guidance and legislation. It took all relevant information into account when reaching its decision and did not take irrelevant information into account.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the review committee considered Mrs X’s request for home to school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman