Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consider his and his family’s health conditions and disabilities when it decided which schools his children should go to and that it would not provide transport for the children to get to school. The Council failed to consider Mr X’s school transport application properly which caused him frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and hold an independent appeal panel to reconsider Mr X’s school transport application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not consider his and his family’s health conditions and disabilities when it decided which schools his children should go to and that it would not provide transport for the children to get to their schools. Mr X said this caused him distress and a financial loss as he had to pay to get his children to school. Mr X wanted the Council to provide support for the children to get to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint the Council did not consider the family’s circumstances when it offered school places for his children. This is because Mr X informed me that his children now all go to the school of his choice. Therefore there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigation of that point.
6. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his request for school transport for his children.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Transport arrangements for eligible children

9. 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)

Council’s eligibility criteria

10. The Council’s school transport policy stated that children may be eligible for travel assistance if their parent or guardian has medical or mobility needs which mean they cannot transport the child to school, if the child cannot get there themselves. The Council would require relevant medical evidence.
11. The policy states that when it receives and application for school transport it will conduct an assessment to consider the family’s needs and any appropriate travel assistance. It will inform the applicant of the outcome of their application.

Transport appeals

12. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
13. The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:

• 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 detailed written notification of the outcome of the review setting out the nature of the decision, how the review was conducted, what was taken into account, the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage 2; and
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request for an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about appealing to us.
  (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

What happened

14. The Council said it offered Mr X places for all his children at school 1 in December 2023. Mr X declined the place for one of his children in favour of a place at school 2. Mr X’s other children began attending school 1.
15. Mr X provided the Council with letters from the department of work and pension in January 2024 to evidence he could not transport his children to school. In response the Council confirmed there were no places for Mr X’s other two children at school 2. It said, ‘It may be possible that the [Council] will reimburse your travel expenses given your medical condition until we are in a position to offer the children places at [school 2].’
16. Six working days later the Council told Mr X it would not provide school transport to school 1. It did not provide an explanation or what information it had considered in making its decision.
17. Mr X provided further medical evidence to the Council in March 2024.
18. Mr X complained to the Council. He complained that he did not agree with the schools the council had assigned to his children and that one child was in a different school to the other, and it had not considered his and his wife’s disabilities which meant they could not take the children to school. Mr X complained the Council had not offered any school transport. Mr X said the Council was being discriminatory and he wanted it to apologise, provide school transport and reimburse Mr X for the money he had spent on getting his children to school.
19. The Council responded and said the medical evidence Mr X provided showed that he did not meet the criteria for travel assistance. It explained how it had considered the evidence he provided and that Mr X had not evidenced he was disabled. It explained what evidence it would accept. It said it did not uphold the complaint.
20. Mr X and asked the Council to consider his complaint further. He said he provided appropriate evidence and the Council had not considered his wife’s disability.
21. The Council responded in August and reiterated its explanation of why Mr X was not eligible for school transport. It sent Mr X a copy of its school transport policy. It apologised to Mr X for its delay in responding to his stage two complaint and offered £50 as a remedy. The Council signposted Mr X to us if he remained dissatisfied.
22. Mr X complained to us in November 2024.
23. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed Mr X did not complete a travel assistance application and it had dealt with Mr X’s request as an enquiry following a school admissions request. It said it had considered the medical evidence and provided Mr X an outcome and explanation and so the lack of application had not affected the outcome of its decision.
24. Mr X told me that all three of his children began attending school 2 in September 2024. He still wanted the Council to provide transport for the children.

My findings

25. The Council responded to Mr X’s request for school transport and complaint on the basis he was requesting transport for the two children who were initially attending school 1, which was further from the home address. However, Mr X was requesting transport for all three children, including for the journey to school 2 where all three children are now attending. I do not find there was Council fault on this point however it is relevant to explain why I have continued to investigate the school transport complaint even though all three children now attend school 2.
26. Mr X requested school transport for his children based on his and his wife’s disabilities. The Council told Mr X it would not provide transport but did not provide an explanation of it decision or the information it considered until after Mr X complained. It did not signpost Mr X to the correct application or the policy that explained the eligibility criteria and how the Council would make its decision and did not deal with the request in line with its own policy. That was fault and caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty about what information he should provide and why he was not eligible.
27. When the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint it did provide an explanation of its decision and the information it provided and sent Mr X a copy of its policy. However, it did not inform Mr X of his right to an independent appeal panel to consider his application. That was fault and meant Mr X was denied the opportunity to have an independent appeal panel consider his application and supporting evidence.
28. Mr X stated the Council had promised to provide school transport and then did not do so. However the records show the Council had said it may be able to reimburse Mr X’s expenses, but confirmed it would not do so within six working days. There was no fault in the Council’s action on that point.
29. The Council delayed responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint which caused him frustration. The Council has already offered Mr X a symbolic financial payment which is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Action

30. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Write to Mr X and apologise for the frustration and uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s faults and pay him a symbolic amount of £200; and
2. Hold a stage two independent appeal panel to consider Mr X’s application, additional information and representations about his school transport request, and provide the outcome within five working days of the decision being made;
3. If the Council decides it should provide school transport following the appeal hearing, it should consider if it will reimburse Mr X’s transport costs since his first request for school transport support; and
4. Remind Council’s school admission and school transport officers to signpost parents who request school transport to the Council’s application process and policy to ensure applications are dealt with appropriately, and to ensure complaints about school transport decisions are dealt with in line with the statutory guidance as outlined in paragraphs 12-13.
31. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman