Summary: Miss X complained about the outcome of her school transport appeal for her child and the arrangements the Council made, which she says caused her family significant anxiety. We did not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to award her child a bus pass after a school transport appeal. She says her child cannot comfortably use public transport due to their special needs. This has caused significant frustration and distress for the family.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
3. 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

4. I offered to speak to Miss X by phone to discuss her complaint. I considered the information Miss X provided for her complaint to us.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X 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

Law and administrative background

School transport – arrangements for eligible children

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Local authorities have a discretionary power to provide travel to school for children resident in their area who are not eligible children. It is for each local authority to decide whether and how to exercise their discretionary power (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2024, paragraphs 75 to 80).

Background

10. Miss X’s child (“Y”) has special educational needs. The previous year, the Council provided a shared minibus for Y. The distance to Y’s previous school was over the statutory walking distance guideline.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

11. In May 2024, Miss X submitted a school transport application for Y. She put her preference as shared transport, such as a minibus. She did not include specific details about Y’s needs relating to transport.
12. In mid-June 2024, the Council wrote to Miss X. It considered her application and declined to offer transport assistance for Y. It noted Y had an Education, Health and Care (“EHC”) Plan but this did not automatically mean a pupil is eligible for travel assistance. It considered the distance between Y’s home address and the school was below the minimum statutory walking distance and there was no information to state Y could not walk this distance, accompanied as necessary.
13. Miss X wrote back to the Council disagreeing with the decision. She had another child so could not accompany Y and Y could not deal with public transport due to their special needs. She requested a reconsideration.
14. The Council wrote to Miss X in response. It said it did not have information to say Y could not walk to school, accompanied as necessary. It noted her comments about her other child, but a child would not normally be eligible solely because of a parent’s caring responsibilities. It upheld its original decision to not award transport for Y.
15. In September 2024, Miss X made an appeal request. She outlined Y’s special needs, Y’s difficulties with public buses, her own anxieties when accompanying Y to school and the financial strain with the costs of the bus. She provided a supporting letter from the school.
16. In October 2024, a few days after the appeal hearing, the Council wrote to Miss X with the outcome. It reviewed the information and determined there was no reason Y could not walk the school distance if accompanied. In coming to its decision, the appeal panel noted a number of points raised in the appeal. This included Miss X’s struggles with walking the route for personal reasons, the unavailability of her partner to do it, Y’s tendency to trip over, and Miss X’s view that Y would benefit from shared transport as they had been negatively affected so far with public transport as it did not suit their needs. It also considered parts of Y’s EHC Plan about their mobility and independence.
17. The appeal panel weighed these factors up and decided there were exceptional circumstances to depart from its policy. It upheld Miss X’s appeal to provide travel assistance for Y. It issued a bus pass for Y and an adult pass for Miss X to accompany them, with the expectation all parties would work with Y towards independent travel in the future to build their confidence. Miss X then complained to us.
18. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided its notes of the appeal hearing and record of its decision.

Analysis

19. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what transport arrangements should be made for a child or young person. We review how councils have made decisions and whether it has followed guidance and considered relevant information when reaching its views. If we decide there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot criticise the merits of it or say it should have reached a different outcome, no matter how much a complainant disagrees with it.
20. In this case, I consider there is no fault in how the Council made its decision on Miss X’s application. The first test a council must consider is a child’s eligibility for free school transport. The Council, and the appeal panel, decided Y was not eligible as it considered with Y’s special needs, it was reasonable for them to be able to walk the route to school (as it was under the minimum statutory distance) if accompanied (see Paragraph 7). Therefore, it did not have a duty to provide transport on that basis.
21. The appeal panel then considered further information about financial hardship, Miss X’s view that Y could not travel alone, and she had personal circumstances which made it difficult for her to accompany Y on the walking route. It decided there were exceptional circumstances to provide transport, even though Y was not eligible under statutory guidance. The Council used its discretionary powers to do this. It considered Y’s needs to build up independence and decided to issue a bus pass to Y and one for Miss X free of charge, which would go towards this. In line with statutory guidance, as it was a discretionary offer, it is for the Council to decide how to exercise its power with the transport arrangement it offers.
22. While Miss X strongly disagrees with the decision, I do not find fault. Overall, the appeal panel was entitled to make their own judgement on the information before them and look at a case on its merits. I am satisfied it did here as the evidence available shows it took into account the relevant information it was presented with, including the family’s personal circumstances and Miss X had the opportunity to present her views which were considered. The decision letter to Miss X explained the key issues the panel had considered and how it had reached its decision. It was therefore a decision it was entitled to make. As I have not identified fault, I cannot criticise the professional judgements reached in this case.

Back to top

Decision

23. I do not find the Council at fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman