Summary: Mr P complains his son was not awarded dedicated home to school transport when the family moved. We find fault with the Council for failing to consider the information Mr P provided, causing him frustration and uncertainty. We have agreed the Council do the appeal again.

The complaint

1. Mr P complains his son Y was not awarded dedicated home to school transport, instead given a bus pass. He said they will need to consider removing him from school as they cannot afford the taxi costs every day.
2. Mr P would like the Council to award him dedicated transport to and from school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 spoke with Mr P and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I considered relevant law and guidance, as set out below and our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
8. Mr P 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 guidance

Education, Health and Care Plan

9. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections.

SEN Transport and Accompaniment

10. The statutory government guidance ‘Travel to School for Children of Compulsory School Age’ says councils need to assess eligibility on the grounds of special educational needs, disability or mobility problems on a case-by-case basis. Councils should take account of the child’s physical ability to walk to school and any health and safety issues related to their special educational needs, disability or mobility problems. Councils may take account of whether they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied by an adult.
11. Children will not normally be eligible solely because of their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities. However, councils must consider cases where the parent says there are good reasons why they cannot accompany their child or make other suitable arrangements for their journey. We expect to see evidence of the council’s decision on accompaniment based on the individual circumstances of the case.
12. The law allows councils to meet their duty for eligible children in a number of ways, as long as the council has the consent of the parent. With the agreement of a parent, the council might:
• provide a travel allowance to enable the parent to make their own travel arrangements for their child;
• pay a cycling allowance to enable a child to cycle to school;
• provide independent travel training to a child where it is appropriate to do so;
• provide someone to escort or ‘buddy’ the child, for example when they are walking or wheeling to and from school.

School Transport appeals

13. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. Part 5 of 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.
14. The guidance says the appeal panel must notify the parent in writing of the outcome within five days of the hearing. The letter should clearly explain:
• whether they have upheld the local authority’s original decision;
• why they reached that decision;
• how the review was conducted;
• the factors considered in reaching their decision; and
• any other agencies or departments were consulted as part of the review.

What happened

15. Mr P’s son Y has a diagnosis of autism and has severe communication difficulties. He moved from another Council with his EHC Plan. The previous Council arranged for a taxi to take Y to and from school.
16. Y now has an EHC Plan with this Council dated January 2024, and a special school is named in Section I which he started to attend in September 2024.
17. Mr P applied for home to school transport in June 2024 and the Council awarded Y a bus pass.
18. Mr P appealed this decision saying Y has no awareness of danger. The previous Council had provided taxi’s to and from the school. Y’s Mum does not drive so would not be able to get Y to school, and Mr P works.
19. The stage one appeal decision from the Council in August said it considered the fact the school is the nearest school with places available, and Y’s EHC Plan. It said it could not grant the appeal as the information given did not justify a change to the original decision.
20. It said there was no evidence of reduced mobility and no evidence to suggest Y cannot make the journey into school. It mentioned guidance expects parents to accompany children to school, so work or other commitments cannot normally be considered as a reason to award transport.
21. Mr P sent a stage two appeal in September. He said Y’s Mum had tried taking Y to school on public transport and has twice been asked to leave the bus by the driver due to safety concerns.
22. Y cannot follow simple instructions, talk or communicate (as supported by information in the EHC Plan). This can result in meltdowns. Y will self-harm and his actions may harm other passengers. Y has no awareness of danger, has sensory difficulties and is difficult to restrain (as stated in his EHC Plan). He is too big for a pushchair.
23. The stage two appeal decision from the Council said it considered the route and it is a reasonable journey. It said there was no new supporting evidence and no mention of any assisted transport requirements in the EHC Plan.
24. In November Mr P brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was not happy with the Council’s decision.

Analysis

25. The Council must ensure the travel arrangements take account of the needs of the child concerned. Guidance provides an example that it would not be appropriate to provide a pass for free travel on a bus service to a child whose special educational needs meant they cannot travel on a bus, even where accompanied.
26. Mr P provided reasons Y could not travel to school on public transport. The Council’s stage two decision said no new evidence had been provided, but Mr Y had given evidence they had tried taking Y to school by public transport and had been unsuccessful.
27. The minutes have no specific comment on how the Council considered Y’s awareness of dangers, despite this being in the application, the EHC Plan and Mr P’s grounds for appeal at stage two. It hasn’t been clear how it has considered the ‘suitability’ of the transport offered (in this case, a bus pass).
28. It failed to consider Y being difficult to restrain and his sensory issues (which are in the EHC Plan), in the context of public transport and keeping Y safe on the bus.
29. It said the journey was “reasonable” and broke down the time and distance. This implies the Council’s rationale is generic, rather than specific to Mr P’s stated circumstances.
30. It is fine for the Council to say that a parent should go with Y. However, in this case, Mr P provided evidence to show that even accompanied bus travel is not suitable for Y. The evidence provided raises questions whether Y can travel in reasonable safety and comfort, and without undue stress, strain or difficulty.
31. The Council must demonstrate it has considered all the relevant information and I am not persuaded it has.
32. I therefore recommend the Council consider the appeal again and demonstrate consideration of all the elements put forward by Mr P. It should then provide its reasons for its view. If it finds the bus pass is reasonable, it must provide its rationale as to why it is appropriate, taking into consideration the points put forward by Mr P.

Back to top

Agreed Action

33. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr P for the faults identified and the uncertainty caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
• Complete a fresh stage two appeal, giving particular consideration to the points detailed in this decision. Mr P should be given the opportunity to provide any further comments or evidence.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

I find fault with the Council’s appeal not considering the information Mr P provided. This caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr P and I have recommended the Council do the appeal again.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman