Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her home to school transport appeals for her son (Y). We do not find fault in the way the Council reached its decision. But we find it failed to provide a copy of its shortest walking route and sufficiently detailed outcome letters to Mrs X which caused her avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress about the Council’s decision making. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and provide a staff reminder to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to:
1. Correctly apply statutory guidance and its policy during her appeal for school transport for her son (Y) who has special educational needs.
2. Provide her with a copy of the shortest walking route used to determine her appeal.
3. Properly consider Y’s vulnerabilities and exceptional circumstances in reaching its appeal decision.
2. Mrs X says Y consequently missed out on transport assistance to which he is entitled. She says this impacts on her other child who is late due to Mrs X having to manage two school runs. She says the situation also caused her uncertainty and distress about whether the Council reached the decision correctly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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).
4. We cannot question whether an appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
5. 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).
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. During my investigation I spoke to Mrs X to discuss her complaint and considered information she provided. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Stautory Guidance 2014

Home to school travel arrangements

9. Councils must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’.
10. ‘Eligible children’ include:
• children living outside the ‘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.

Route safety

11. Home to school transport must be provided to children living within walking distance of the school if the route is reasonably deemed unsafe. In deciding whether a child can reasonably be expected to walk to school, (whether the issue is safety or disability), the question is whether they can do so if accompanied, and whether it is reasonable to expect a parent to accompany them.

Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plans)

12. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC Plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
13. A child will not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem, or on the grounds that the route is unsafe if they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.

The Council’s home to school transport policy

14. The Council’s policy is in line with the statutory guidance in relation to ‘eligibility’, it also says:
• Transport may be provided in discretionary circumstances if the child is unable to attend school because of a medical condition or disability. Eligibility will be considered on receipt of written advice from a GP or hospital and based on an individual assessment of their transport requirements.
• Having an EHC plan does not automatically mean a child will be eligible for travel assistance. Every case will be considered individually taking account of any information provided by parents, the school, and qualified professionals.
• The Council will consider various factors including the students age and need to be accompanied, impact of the student’s SEN on travel, suitability of the route, travel time and distance travelled and any other identified vulnerabilities.

Appeals process

15. The Council has a two-stage appeals process for eligibility for travel support in line with statutory guidance.
• Stage 1: review by a senior officer. Within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision, a senior officer reviews the original decision and sends the parent a written notification of the outcome.
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request for an independent appeal panel considers written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is then sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached and the rationale for the decision reached.
16. The ‘Home to School Travel Guidance’, July 2014, was replaced in June 2023 by ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ statutory guidance, I have referred to the old guidance as Mrs X submitted her application when the old guidance was in place although her appeal was after the new guidance came into effect. The new
17. The LGSCO’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice says we expect councils to be open and accountable. This includes clearly explaining the rationale for decisions and recording them accurately.

What happened

18. Mrs X’s son (Y) was due to move from primary to secondary school in September 2023. Y has an EHC plan dated February 2023. It says Y:
• Has high levels of anxiety around separation from Mrs X.
• Finds it difficult to remember information needed to complete tasks, sustain attention and often loses belongings and becomes dysregulated.
• Shows streetwise understanding, such as safely crossing roads and is working towards independent travel.

Mrs X’s initial application

19. In March 2023, Mrs X applied for travel assistance for Y to the named school (‘the school’) in his EHC plan from September 2023. Y was 11 at the time, Mrs X explained:
• The distance to the school was beyond Y’s ability, knowledge, and comfort as he would need to walk almost an hour along main roads or use two buses.
• She could not accompany Y as she would need to take her younger daughter to school at the same time and had work duties immediately after.
20. The records show, at the end of March, the Council wrote to inform Mrs X her application was unsuccessful. It said its SEN panel had concluded the family did not meet the criteria for travel assistance as Y’s school was below the three-mile qualifying distance.

Stage one appeal

21. In late May, Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision with a supporting letter from Y’s school. The letter describes Y’s difficulties while travelling both alone and accompanied and lists the associated risks due to his SEN needs.
22. In mid- October, the Council wrote to Mrs X again to confirm her appeal was unsuccessful. The decision letter said transport was only provided when the nearest appropriate school was over 3 miles away. It said it appreciated Mrs X’s family circumstances, but it was not felt there was sufficient information to award outside its policy.

Stage two appeal

23. In early June, Mrs X progressed Y’s school transport appeal to stage two.
24. The appeal minutes say Mrs X explained:
• The Council had not considered all of Y’s circumstances including his complex needs, attendance at a special school, EHC plan and dysregulation during travel.
• She would not be able to accompany Y as she had to take her younger daughter to school and then go to work herself.
• Y would not be able to walk the one hour to school and it would be unsafe even if Mrs X accompanied him.
25. The records show the panel discussed the evidence but decided:
• Mrs X’s main grounds were difficulties with managing two school runs and getting to work.
• Y’s EHC plan confirmed he did not have any mobility issues, wanted to learn to travel independently and showed streetwise understanding.
• Although Y had special needs Mrs X and her partner both lived in the same household, had access to two vehicles and could therefore arrange transport.
• Awarding of transport was based on the needs of the child and not parents or siblings and Mrs X’s appeal did not meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.
26. In late July, the Council wrote to Mrs X to confirm it had refused her stage two appeal. The Council’s letter states it appreciated Mrs X’s family circumstances, but transport was only provided where the nearest appropriate school was over 3 miles and there was insufficient evidence to award outside its policy.
27. Unhappy with the Council’s decision Mrs X approached the Ombudsman in late September. Mrs X told us the Council:
• Did not provide her with a copy of the map it used to calculate the statutory distance between her home and the school.
• Had not considered or explained its rationale in relation to the safety of the walking route. She said the available online maps included routes with busy crossings at round abouts, junctions, walking along a canal and multiple turns which Y would not be able to navigate alone.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

28. The Council has:
• Confirmed it failed to provide Mrs X with a copy of its shortest walking route before her stage two panel meeting due to an oversight. However, the matter was discussed at the panel who accepted the distance had been checked using recognised mapping systems and Mrs X also accepted the distance was below 3 miles.
• Provided us a map of its calculated shortest walking route (Map A). This shows the distance between Mrs X’s home and the school is approximately 2.8 miles (one-hour walk). The Council confirmed it deemed this a safe walking route. It also provided an alternative driving map (Map B) which says the distance is 2.9 miles (14-minute drive).
• Explained Y did not qualify for free school transport based on distance as the school was only 2.8 miles away. It also considered the walking route between home and the school was safe as there are manageable pavements and crossing points.
• Confirmed it carefully considered the letter from Y’s primary school but it contradicted Y’s EHC plan which said he wanted to learn to travel independently and had street wise understanding of crossing roads.

Analysis- was there fault and did it cause injustice?

29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not for us to decide whether the Council should provide transport for Mrs X’s son (Y). That is the Council’s job, we can consider whether the Council followed the correct steps in reaching its decision (Paragraph 4). Based on the evidence, I find the Council correctly applied the statutory guidance (Paragraphs 10,11 and 13) and its transport policy (Paragraph 14) in considering Mrs X’s appeal.
30. The available records show the Council initially calculated the distance between Mrs X’s home and the school (2.8 miles) using a recognised mapping system. It therefore decided Y’s application did not meet the 3-mile statutory threshold (Paragraph 9). The Council then turned to consider Y’s special circumstances in light of his EHC plan. The available records confirm the Council reviewed the information provided by Mrs X including the letter from Y’s primary school (Paragraph 21) and compared it with the information in his EHC plan. It decided to place greater emphasis on the EHC plan as an agreed professional document. This confirmed Y did not have any mobility issues which would impede his ability to attend school if accompanied and that he displayed good street understanding and wanted to learn to travel independently. The Council has confirmed it did not consider the walking routes as unsafe and ensured it only included pavements and safe crossings which Y could navigate if accompanied. In my view, the records show the Council’s consideration was in line with its duties as set out at Paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 (above). I understand Mrs X made representations about difficulties with taking Y and a younger sibling to school at the same time, but the Council has explained it considered Mrs X had alternative support at home and the award of transport was based on the needs of the child and not parents or siblings. In the absence of any fault in how the Council considered Mrs X appeals, I cannot question the merits of its final decision.
31. However, I find the Council at fault for failing to provide Mrs X with a copy of its shortest walking route prior to her stage two appeal hearing. The Council explained this was due to an oversight. It said this did not cause any injustice to Mrs X as she ultimately accepted the routes from her home to the school was below the statutory 3-mile threshold. However, I note Mrs X said she had to use online maps during and after her appeals, which showed the distance was greater than 3 miles. This caused her avoidable confusion, uncertainty, and frustration about whether the Council had decided her appeals correctly. This is injustice.
32. I also find the Council at fault for failing to properly explain its stage one and two appeal decisions in adequate detail. The available records show the Council’s outcome letters were short and lacked detail. In my view, they did not completely set out its decision rationales as recorded in its panel records (Paragraphs 25) and later response to our enquiries (Paragraph 28). This was not in line with the Council’s appeals process as explained at paragraph 15 (above) and the Ombudsman Principles of Good Administrative Practice (Paragraph 17). These require Council’s to clearly explain in sufficient detail the nature and rationale of decisions. The Council’s failure to do so, is fault which caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and distress as she believed it had not properly considered her representations in reaching its decisions. Mrs X therefore felt the need to approach the Ombudsman with her complaint. This is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:
1. Write to Mrs X and apologise for:
• Failing to provide her with a copy of its shortest walking route prior to her stage two appeal hearing and any avoidable confusion, uncertainty and frustration caused to her.
• Failing to provide her with a clear and detailed explanation of its rationale for refusing her stage one and two appeals and any avoidable uncertainty and distress caused.
1. Make a payment to Mrs X of £100 in recognition of her avoidable uncertainty frustration and distress.
2. Remind staff sending home to school transport appeal outcome letters to include sufficient detail fully explaining the rationale for the Council’s decisions.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I do not find fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s appeal. However, I find the Council failed to provide Mrs X a copy of the shortest walking route considered by the appeal panel and failed to send her suitably detailed letters explaining its rationale for the outcome of her appeals. This caused Mrs X avoidable confusion, uncertainty, frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and provide a staff reminder about decision letters. This is an appropriate remedy.
36. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman