Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Miss X’s child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained the Council rejected her application for home to school transport for her daughter (Y). Miss X says the Council previously said it would provide transport and has provided medical evidence in support of her request.

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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

5. Local authorities must make travel arrangements, free of charge, to facilitate the attendance at school of eligible children resident in their area. (Section 508B, Education Act 1996).
6. A child is eligible if they are of compulsory school age, they attend their nearest suitable school, and:
• the distance from home to school is more than the statutory walking distance; or
• the child could not reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their SEN, disability, or mobility problem, even if accompanied by their parent; or
• they would not be able to walk to that school in reasonable safety, even if they were accompanied by their parent.
7. Paragraph 5 of the Department for Education’s Statutory Guidance (the Guidance) on Home to School Transport, explains the nearest secondary school to the home of a child of secondary school age will almost always be their nearest suitable school.
8. The Guidance requires local authorities to have regard to any wish of a parent to have their child educated at a school based on their religion or belief. But this does not mean local authorities must arrange travel to a school with a designated religions character where parents have chosen it on the grounds of religion or belief. Councils should instead not have a blanket policy to refuse assistance in such circumstances. Local Authorities should make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
9. The Guidance recommends a two-stage appeals process for parents to challenge decisions about home to school transport.

Application, appeal, and complaint

10. Miss X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to her preferred secondary school. The Council refused Miss X’s application. The school Y would be attending was 1.4 miles away. The nearest suitable school was 0.9 miles away. The Council refused Miss X’s application on the basis Y was not attending the nearest suitable school. The distance from home to school was also less than the statutory walking distance.
11. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision. Miss X provided information about her daughter’s health conditions which meant she would struggle to walk to either of the schools referred to above.
12. An independent panel refused Miss X’s appeal at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. It confirmed the original decision that Y was not attending the nearest suitable school.
13. Miss X subsequently complained to the Council. She said Y’s primary school had been told that if Y did not meet the distance criteria and attended the nearest suitable secondary school, medical evidence would be needed to explain why transport was needed. Miss X said she had provided this. Miss X explained she had chosen the school Y would attend as it was the nearest religious school to her home. Miss X said she felt the Council was failing to make a reasonable adjustment.

Assessment

14. We will not start an investigation into Miss X’s complaint.
15. We are not a right of further appal and cannot question a council’s decision if it has made it in line with the correct process.
16. The Council initially decided Y was not an eligible child because she is not attending the nearest suitable school. That decision is in line with the relevant legislation set out in the Guidance. There is no evidence of fault.
17. The Council then considered Miss X’s appeals in line with its published policy. This also aligns with the Guidance. The Council considered the information Miss X provided but decided not to provide transport. It confirmed the Council’s original decision. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take.
18. Miss X’s complaint to the Council referred to it previously saying medical information would be needed if her daughter did not meet the distance criteria to qualify for transport. But this advice was offered in the context Y would be attending the nearest suitable school. Miss X accepts there is a closer school to home, and so there was no fault in the previous advice offered.
19. Miss X says the Council is failing to make a reasonable adjustment. But there is no requirement on the Council to provide transport when a child does not attend the nearest suitable school. The Council has decided this is the case and that there are no discretionary reasons to provide transport.
20. While I understand Miss X is disappointed with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman