Summary: Ms X complained the Council declined her applications for her child’s travel assistance since they started secondary school. We found fault with the Council failing to consider the full circumstances of Ms X’s applications. The Council agreed to consider an application for travel assistance for Ms X’s child referring to Ms X’s evidenced mobility issues and her child’s episodes of unconsciousness. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms X and considers its discretion to reimburse any costs Ms X has incurred in arranging travel to school for her child since September 2024, if the Council accepts the travel assistance application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council declined to continue with a private taxi transport for her child when they started at secondary school.
2. Ms X says her child has autism and cannot travel alone because of a lack of awareness and anxiety which puts them in danger. Ms X says she cannot take her child to school because of severe mobility issues.
3. Ms X says the Council’s decision has resulted in difficulties for her child attending school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

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)

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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)
13. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
14. 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)

Council’s policy on school transportation

15. The Council’s Travel Assistance policy details how it will provide travel assistance for children of various ages.
16. Part 2 of the Council’s policy refers to children of compulsory school age. The Council says that its policy is designed so it follows its legal obligations to provide travel assistance to eligible children but would not otherwise unless there are exceptional circumstances.
17. The Council details that a person must make an application through travel assistance through its formal application form. The Council says it will consider an application as soon as possible but meanwhile a parent is still responsible for ensuring a child attends school. The Council says that where it is responsible for a “serious undue delay in determining an application for travel assistance, or an application is refused but is granted on appeal” the Council may consider its discretion to reimburse any travel expenses incurred because of this delay.
18. The Council says a person should appeal a decision within 20 working days. The Council says its will then acknowledge an appeal within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of receipt of the appeal.
19. If a person is dissatisfied with the Stage 1 appeal response a person can request consideration at Stage 2 of the appeal process. The Council will consider the appeal at panel within 40 working days of request and then provide written confirmation of the outcome within 5 working days of the panel meeting.

What happened

20. On 1 March 2024, Ms X made an application, Application 1, for travel assistance for her child, Y. Ms X said that:
• Y had cognition and learning difficulties and social, emotional and mental health needs.
• Y had behavioural challenges in which Y displays violent and aggressive behaviour and has difficulty using public transport.
• Y struggles to walk long distances before getting aches and pains.
• She does not have a car so cannot take Y to school and Y needed a guide to supervise them.
21. On 22 May 2024, the Council decided not to award travel assistance for Y. The Council said it had not provided travel assistance because:
• Y does not have an Education, Health and Care Plan which details Y’s needs.
• The journey is reasonable and within statutory travelling distance.
• Ms X did not provide any evidence of reduced mobility for Y.
• It is reasonable for a parent to accompany a child to school or make suitable arrangements for them to attend school.
• There is no evidence to suggest Y cannot make this journey to school when supported by Ms X.
22. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision on 22 May 2024. Ms X provided evidence of Y’s Autism which caused anxiety and stress walking. Ms X also provided evidence of Y being entitled to the lower rate of Disability Living Allowance which stated that Y needed “someone to guide or supervise” them on unfamiliar routes. Ms X also provided evidence of Y having in-toeing which made them clumsy when walking. Ms X said she cannot walk 10 meters so cannot accompany Y to school and provided evidence of her receiving the enhanced rate of PIP.
23. The Council held a panel meeting on 21 June 2024 to consider Ms X’s appeal. The Council upheld its decision not to award travel assistance for Y because the new evidence provided by Ms X did not show Y has a mobility issue. The Council said there was also not enough evidence to show that Ms X had a disability or mobility problem which would make it difficult for her to accompany Y to school. The Council summarised that Ms X had not provided evidence that Y could not make the journey to school when accompanied by Ms X.
24. On 25 June 2024, the Council issued a Stage 1 appeal response detailing its decision. The Council explained its decision from the panel meeting.
25. Ms X appealed the Council’s Stage 1 appeal decision in July 2024. Ms X provided evidence of:
• A doctor confirming Y’s in-toeing made him “slightly clumsy”.
• Her mobility issues including confirmation from medical professionals that she struggles to walking long distances and that Ms X “is suffering with left sided hip pain likely secondary to a labral tear. This does cause her significant hip pain and affects her mobility”.
26. The Council considered Ms X’s second stage appeal at panel on 5 August 2024. The panel confirmed that Y had behavioural difficulties which would mean Y could not travel the route alone. The panel said there was no evidence of physical difficulties for Y and the journey itself was reasonable and within statutory walking distance. The panel noted that Ms X was responsible for ensuring Y attended school but there is no evidence of consideration of Ms X’s mobility issues.
27. On 3 September 2024, the Council apologised for the delay in issuing the Stage 2 response and advised the panel did not grant travel assistance for Y. The Council promised to send a formal explanation soon.
28. Ms X made a new application, Application 2, to the Council on 25 September 2024. This application did not contain any new information from Application 1. The Council did not respond to this application.
29. On 31 October 2024, the Council issued a formal letter explaining its Stage 2 appeal decision. The Council detailed its consideration from the 5 August 2024 panel meeting. The Council did not reference Ms X’s mobility issues in this letter.
30. From October 2024, Y started to experience episode of losing consciousness at school.
31. On 10 December 2024, Ms X made a new application, Application 3, for travel assistance. Ms X included new information about Y experiencing episodes of unconsciousness.
32. The Council withdrew Application 3 on 16 December 2024 advising it had already considered her application at Stage 2 appeal.
33. On 20 January 2025, Ms X made a further application, Application 4, for travel assistance reiterating the episodes of losing consciousness. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council on 21 January 2025 about this matter.
34. On 27 January 2025, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint advising it had already considered her application at Stage 2 appeal and asked for clarification about why she had made a new application.
35. In February 2025, Ms X told the Council the reason for the new application was because of Y’s episodes of losing consciousness and this was in the application. The Council responded to advise Ms X’s application had already been to panel and Council cannot overturn or revisit this decision. The Council said it would look to close Application 4. The Council has not closed Application 4 to date.

Analysis

36. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define the law.
37. The Ombudsman must decide if the Council has considered the relevant legislation and policies in making its decision not to provide travel assistance for Y. If the Council has considered the relevant policies and reached a suitable decision in line with these policies, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.
38. When the Council decided to decline Application 1, the Council referenced the relevant statutory criteria and considered the information put in by Ms X. The Council decided Y could walk to school when accompanied by Ms X. Since the Council followed the relevant legislation, I cannot find fault.
39. A council must consider cases were a parent says there is good reason why they are unable to accompany their child on their journey to school. Ms X’s Stage 1 appeal to the Council was the first instance Ms X mentioned her inability to accompany Y to school. While Ms X told the Council she could not walk further than 10 metres, so could not accompany Y to school, meaning Y needed travel assistance, Ms X did not provide evidence to support this. Declining travel assistance at Stage 1 of the appeal process was a decision the Council was entitled to make and it followed the relevant legislation; I cannot find fault with the Council.
40. When Ms X raised the Stage 2 appeal, she provided evidence to the Council to support her mobility issues. This evidence included a letter from a doctor dated July 2024 confirming Ms X had "significant hip pain” which “affects her mobility”.
41. The Council told the Ombudsman in response to our enquiries the panel considered this information and said Ms X had a “short-term mobility restriction due to injury”. Neither the Stage 2 panel notes nor the letter issued on 31 October 2024 contain this statement or show any comment on Ms X’s mobility issues other than saying they had considered the supporting information. There is no evidence the Council, or panel, has considered Ms X’s ability to accompany Y to school when it has made its Stage 2 appeal decision. The Council’s decision was that Y did not need travel assistance because they could walk to school specifically when accompanied. However, failure to consider whether Ms X could accompany Y shows fault in the Council’s decision making.
42. Following closure of the Stage 2 appeal, Ms X made three further travel assistance applications to the Council.
43. Application 2 did not contain any new information to Application 1 which the Council had already considered at Stage 2 panel. The Council acted correctly to withdraw this application and I do not find fault with this decision. But, the Council failed to communicate this decision to Ms X. This was fault but did not cause an injustice to Ms X as the overall decision from the Stage 2 appeal panel would not have changed.
44. Application 3 contained new information about Y’s episodes of losing consciousness. The Council withdrew Application 3 citing that it had considered this matter at stage 2 appeal. This was fault because a significant change in circumstances had occurred which brought into question whether Y could safely walk to school. The Council should have considered Application 3 on its own merits.
45. The Council took the same approach with Application 4 and decided not to progress this application because it had already considered this at Stage 2 panel. Unlike Application 3, the Council has not closed this application because of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
46. The Council should consider Application 4 for travel assistance on its own merits. The Council should take into consideration the evidence of Y’s episodes of losing consciousness when it makes a decision on Application 4. The Council should also consider, and make reference to, the medical evidence Ms X provided about her own mobility issues preventing her from being able to accompany Y.
47. The Council’s policy says where that has been serious undue delay by the Council in determining an application for travel assistance it may consider reimbursement of any travel expenses incurred by a person if it later goes on to award travel assistance. In this circumstance, the Council has delayed in considering Ms X’s further applications despite the change in circumstance. The Council should consider its discretion to reimburse Ms X for any expense she has incurred for Y’s travel costs to attend school since September 2024, if it accepts travel assistance for Y as part of our recommendations in this matter.

Back to top

Action

48. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Consider Ms X’s latest application for travel assistance on its own merits taking into consideration the evidence of Y’s episodes of losing consciousness and also considering, and making reference to, the medical evidence Ms X provided about her own mobility issues preventing her accompanying Y to school.
• Consider its discretion to reimburse Ms X for any expense she has incurred in arranging travel for Y to attend school since September 2024, if it accepts travel assistance for Y. Ms X would need to evidence any costs to the Council.
• Provide an apology to Ms X for the failure to consider the relevant factors in her travel assistance applications for Y.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council accepted my recommendations, I have completed my investigation as I consider that a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman