Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw her son’s home to school transport. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to withdraw her son’s home to school transport.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council provided Mrs X’s son with a taxi to get to college for the academic years 2022/23 and 2023/24. The Council wrote to Mrs X to advise it was withdrawing this transport.
6. Mrs X said her son had an education, health and care (EHC) plan and that his college was named in the plan. She also said her son could not use public transport due to his disabilities.
7. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council refused Mrs X appeal on the basis her son was starting a new course and over the age of 19. Therefore, it said her son did not qualify for free school transport in line with its policy.
8. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing an injustice. This is because the Council’s reason for declining to provide home to school transport is flawed as it failed to consider its duties under the Education Act 1996, section 508F. This sets out that councils must make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of any:
• Adults (those aged 19 or over) receiving education at maintained further or higher education establishments; and
• Relevant young adults (those up to age 25 with an EHC plan who started the programme of learning after their 19th birthday) receiving any education or training arranged for them.
9. It is also likely we would find fault as the Council failed to signpost Mrs X to the second stage appeal. Further, while the Council identified during its complaint investigation there was a second stage appeal, the Council failed to refer the matter to be considered at stage two. Given Mrs X had complained about the decision, it should have been evidence she remained unhappy with the decision to withdraw school transport and that she would want to exhaust the appeals process.
10. I am satisfied the likely faults will have caused an injustice to Mrs X as there is uncertainty as to whether the Council’s decision is correct.
11. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying this by completing the following:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the likely faults.
2. Consider the matter at stage two of the appeals process. The Council should ensure it considers its duties as set out in the Education Act 1996, Section 508D and provide a clear rationale for its decision if it considers transport is not necessary.
3. Remind staff that all appeal decision letters should signpost to the next relevant stage. The Council should also review its appeal decision templates to ensure relevant signposting information is generated.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman