Summary: Ms X and Mr D complained about the Council’s failure to provide their son, who has special educational needs, with school transport from both his parents’ separate addresses. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it applied its policy when it used its discretion not have to provide transport from Mr D's address because it was in another council’s area.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Mr D complains about the Council’s failure to provide home to school transport for her son, Y, when he resides with Mr D.
2. They say this decision is contrary to previous advice given by a Council officer and has caused significant distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and power

3. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X, Mr D 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

Relevant law and guidance

Home to school transport

7. Councils 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. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

Transport for children with special educational needs

8. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The EHC plan sets out the child's educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. This includes which school, or type of school, they attend.
9. Where the child is attending the nearest suitable school, they will qualify for free transport provided any other relevant conditions are met. Not every child with an EHC plan, or who attends a special school, will be eligible for free travel to school. A child with SEN is eligible for free travel if:

• they attend their nearest suitable school, and
• it is within the statutory walking distance of their home (two miles for children under eight), and
• they could not reasonably be expected to walk there because of their special educational needs, disability (SEND), or mobility problems, even if they were accompanied by their parent. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2024, paragraph 13)

10. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.

The Council’s home to school transport policy

11. Insofar as is relevant to this complaint, the Council “School and College Transport Policy” that was applicable at the time of the appeal stated:

• for children with an EHC Plan, free home to school transport is provided to the school named within their Plan as the nearest qualifying school that can meet their assesses needs. The school must be more than three miles from home; and
• transport support will only be provided from one address and it is parental responsibility to ensure that a child can get to and from school when living at an alternative address. The only exception is where a court has directed that the child must spend 50% of their time with each parent and where the school is a qualifying school for both addresses”.

12. The policy allowed for the Council to use its discretion to provide transport for children who did not meet this criterion.

What happened

13. Ms X and Mr D’s son, Y, has SEN and attends School P. His parents are separated, and Y spends exactly half of his time with each parent. This arrangement is set out in a court order. Mr D, lives in the area of a different council.
14. The Council agreed to fund home to school transport from Ms X’s address only. The issue was considered by the Council’s school transport appeal panel (the Panel). The Panel upheld the Council’s previous decision on the basis School P was not a “qualifying school” from Mr D’s address.
15. Disappointed by this outcome, Ms X and Mr D brought their complaint to the Ombudsman.
16. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the only reason transport would not be provided is because Mr D’s address is another council’s area.

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means it is not our role to take a second look at a decision not to provide school transport to decide if it was right or wrong.
18. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, and they were in line with the relevant law and guidance, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
19. The Council accepts the complainants’ situation was not specifically covered by the policy. For this reason, the Council decided whether it should use its discretion to provide transport in this case. It decided it could not and explained its reasons to Ms X and Mr D. This decision was later upheld by the Panel
20. I do not find the Council to be at fault. It followed its procedure by allowing Ms X and Mr D to present their case to Panel. The minutes from the appeal hearing show their argument in favour of transport from both addresses and their personal circumstances were properly understood and considered by the Panel.
21. The Panel accepted this case was not specifically covered by the Council’s policy and considered whether to exercise discretion provide transport. I am satisfied the Panel was entitled to conclude that School P was not a qualifying school from Mr X’s address because he did not live in the Council area. In the absence of any fault in the process, the Ombudsman will not question the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I find no fault. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman