Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council reached its decision to refuse travel support for her son. We are satisfied the Council considered all the information available and have found no fault with how it reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council reached its decision to refuse school transport for her son (Y) who has special education needs (SEND) and an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered Ms X’s complaint and have spoken to her about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Ms X and to my enquiries.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

School Transport

7. 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 of charge. The relevant 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. ‘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)

SEN Transport – reasonable expectations on accompaniment

8. 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.
9. A child will not normally be eligible solely because their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities mean they are unable to accompany their child themselves. Councils must consider cases where the parent says there are good reasons why they are unable to accompany their child, or make other suitable arrangements for their journey, and make a decision on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
10. Where the local authority determines that a child would be able to walk if they were accompanied, the general expectation is that the parent will accompany them or make other suitable arrangements for their journey to and from school. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, paragraphs 47 to 52)

What happened

11. Ms X’s son, Y has SEN and attends a secondary school, 0.7 miles from his home.
12. In August 2023, Ms X completed an application for travel support to school for her son (Y). In September, the Council refused the application on the grounds that it would be reasonable for Y to walk the 0.7 mile journey if accompanied by a parent. Ms X appealed the decision at stage one and two stating that her and her husband’s work patterns made it difficult to accompany Y. In December, the Council confirmed that its decision to refuse support remained as it did not feel the challenges were sufficiently exceptional for the Council to provide travel support.
13. Ms X argued that the system was disjointed. She said Childrens’ Service considered Y’s needs significant enough to warrant a second teaching assist to support him at school. However, Childrens’ Transport did not consider his needs significant enough to warrant school transport.
14. The Council confirmed that both departments work together, and a SEN supervisor conducted the transport review. The Council said that Children’s Transport considered that the transport situation was a matter of Y’s parents not providing sufficient evidence that it was impossible for them to provide accompaniment rather than Y's needs were so great that a social work intervention was required.
15. The Council said while it appreciated that Y has difficulties such as additional sensory needs and high alertness, it felt those risks could be mitigated with appropriate adult accompaniment.
16. The Council acknowledged that it did not retain a copy of the clerk’s notes from the appeal panel hearing. Therefore, it recognised that there was no clear record of the appeal panel’s deliberations and reasoning behind its decision. As way of rectifying this, it will offer the family a further appeal at stage two of the process.

My findings

17. The Council considered all the information available when it reached its decision to refuse school travel support. I cannot question the Council’s decision if I am satisfied it was reached without fault.
18. I acknowledge that the Council did not keep an adequate record of the panel’s reasons behind its decision. While I consider this to fall short of fault, I support the Council’s offer of a further appeal opportunity for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault with how the Council handled Ms X’s application for transport support for her son.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman