Isle of Wight Council (24 010 212)
Category : Education > School transport
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 26 Nov 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free home to school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council refused her application and following appeal for home to school transport for his child. He says this has affected his wife’s work as she must take their child to school and increased expenses. Also it has affected his child as she cannot catch the bus with her friends.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- 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) says:
“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).
- 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
- Mr X applied for free school transport for his child, Y. The Council refused the application. It said Y did not meet the criteria for free school transport, as set out in its policy, because the distance between their home and school is less than the minimum distance of three miles.
- Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council held an appeal hearing which Mr X attended. The appeal hearing minutes show Mr X presented his case, and the appeal panel considered the information he provided.
- The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Y. The Ombudsman checks the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question Council decisions made without fault, no matter how strongly Mr X disagrees.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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 unable 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).”
- I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. Y does not meet the criteria for free transport as they do not live more than three miles from school.
- The appeal panel considered Mr X’s appeal. It noted the Council carried out a risk assessment of the walking route which is considered safe. It also noted the school is not Mr X’s first choice. The panel decided not to provide free transport for Y. This is a decision the committee is entitled to make.
- Having considered all the relevant information in this case, I am satisfied 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.
- We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council conducted the appeals process in line with statutory guidelines, considered the relevant information, and its decision appears in line with its policy. The Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the outcome of a council’s decision provided the council has acted without fault in making this decision. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with the decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached. An investigation into this matter would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault on the Council’s part.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the review committee considered Mr X’s request for home to school transport.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman