Summary: Mrs M complained the Council withdrew college transport from her son, B. The Council does not appear to have considered its statutory duties, and its decision to end transport before B successfully completed independent travel training appears irrational. A number of faults, taken together, call the Council’s decision to end B’s transport into question. The Council has agreed to consider Mrs M’s application again.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complained the Council withdrew college transport from her son, B.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 injustice we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Once 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 Mrs M and the Council, including all the papers from Mrs M’s transport application and appeals. I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs M’s son, B, attends a college in another borough. The Council provided transport by taxi until July 2023.
7. The Council reviewed B’s transport in May 2023. The Council said B’s transport would cease at the end of term. The Council said:
• it is a parent’s responsibility to accompany a child to school;
• the Council has no legal duty to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16;
• the Council advised B’s family and college to secure independent travel training for him.
8. Mrs M appealed the Council’s decision. She explained B was not expected to be an independent traveller before the end of his final year at college, and no family members were able to help out.
9. Mrs M’s appeal was unsuccessful. The Council noted B was receiving travel training at college. The Council said again it had no legal duty to provide travel assistance. The Council said Mrs M had not provided any additional information.
10. Mrs M appealed at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. The college sent a letter of support which explained the slow pace of B’s travel training. Mrs M confirmed B was not travel trained.
11. The Council confirmed its decision not to provide transport assistance, but offered independent travel training.
12. Unhappy with the Council’s decision, Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

13. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide travel assistance for B. That is the Council’s job. The Ombudsman’s role is to check the Council made its decision properly. We check the Council took account of relevant law and statutory guidance and considered all the relevant evidence.
14. The Council said it does not have duty to provide travel assistance to young people over the age of 16. This is not correct.
15. The Council has duties to ‘young people of sixth form age’ and ‘relevant young adults’. These are set out in the Education Act 1996. The government has issued statutory guidance which councils must follow and from which they must not depart unless they have good reason. (Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training. Statutory guidance for local authorities, issued by the Department for Education in January 2019)
16. The Council’s apparent lack of awareness of its duties and consequent failure to systematically address them in its decision making is fault. It undermines the Council’s decision.
17. Further, the Council said it is a parent’s responsibility to accompany a child to school. B is not a child by any definition.
18. Finally, the Council decided to end B’s transport and offer independent travel training. While it appears everybody supports the goal of independent travel for B, it is illogical to end transport and then offer independent travel training.
19. The Council’s decision to end transport does not make sense until B has successfully completed his independent travel training and has demonstrated he can make the journey to college independently.
20. The Council’s decision appears irrational.
21. The Council has not given any reasons for apparently disregarding information from the college about the slow pace of B’s travel training.
22. Taken together, these faults call the Council’s decision into question. It does not appear the Council has properly considered Mrs M’s transport application.
23. Where we find fault, we consider the impact on the complainant. We refer to this as the injustice. We may recommend a remedy for injustice that is the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
25. I cannot say whether B is entitled to transport. Only the Council can decide. I recommended the Council re-considers Mrs M’s transport application and provides her with a clear and comprehensive written decision. The Council should address the faults I have identified in its previous decisions. I recommended the Council does this within one week of my final decision. If the Council decides B is not eligible for transport, it should offer Mrs M a stage two appeal within two weeks of its decision. The Council should invite Mrs M to attend the appeal hearing and provide a clear and comprehensive written decision within one week of the hearing.
26. If the Council decides B is eligible for home to school transport, it should offer a symbolic payment to acknowledge the transport B should have had since Mrs M’s original application. If Mrs M is unhappy with the offer, she can complain directly to the Ombudsman.
27. The Council should offer Mrs M a symbolic payment of £250 to acknowledge her time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The Council should make the payment within six weeks of my final decision.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
29. We can also make recommendations to ensure similar faults do not happen in the future. We are currently investigating complaints from other parents about school and college transport. I will make recommendations to address the faults found in all the complaints, but I will not repeat them here.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have ended my investigation as the Council accepted my recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman