Summary: The Council wrongly assessed G’s application for free home to school transport using the law, and its policy, for post-16 pupils, when G was compulsory school age. It imposed a personal transport budget as G’s transport offer, when this required parental consent. It failed to notice its error at subsequent appeals. G’s parents had to divert funding provided for social care needs to get G to and from school, and some days G could not go to school. The family missed out on respite and G missed leisure activities social care had determined were needed to aid G’s development. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains the Council ended her daughter, G’s, free home to school solo transport and offered a personal travel budget instead. Mrs M did not want a personal travel budget and says the amount offered was not enough to pay for taxis.
2. Mrs M complains the Council used its post-16 transport policy even though her daughter was of compulsory school age.

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. 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mrs M’s transport application for the academic year 2024-5, when G was statutory school age.
7. I have not investigated entitlement to transport for the academic year 2025-6, when G was post-16.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered information provided by Mrs M and the Council.
9. I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received.
10. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

11. 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. (Education Act 1996 s..508B and schedule 35B)).
12. Statutory Guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’, January 2024 says:
• Where a child is ‘eligible’ councils must ensure travel arrangements take into account the needs of the child concerned (Home to School Transport Guidance). The arrangements should ensure the child can travel in reasonable safety and comfort and without undue stress, strain or difficulty.
• Some children may need particular arrangements to be made to meet their needs. For example, some children might require the support of a passenger assistant on their journey.
• Councils may consider an individual risk assessment is required for some children, for example where their behaviour means there is a risk of harm to themselves or others.
13. The Act (s.508b(4)) says ‘travel arrangements’ in relation to an eligible child, are travel arrangements of any description and include—
• arrangements for the provision of transport, and
• any of the following arrangements only if they are made with the consent of a parent of the child
1. arrangements for the provision of a person to escort the child when travelling to or from the relevant educational establishment in relation to the child;
2. arrangements for the payment of the whole or any part of a person's reasonable travelling expenses;
3. arrangements for the payment of allowances in respect of the use of particular modes of travel.
14. ‘Travel arrangements’ in relation to an eligible child, include travel arrangements of any description made by any parent of the child only if those arrangements are made by the parent voluntarily.
15. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child or the nature of travel support provided.
16. 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 complaining to us.
  (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

17. The law for pupils of sixth form age is different and set out in s.509AA Education Act 1996. The pool of pupils for whom a council will need to provide transport post-16, is smaller than pre-16. Councils can require a financial contribution towards any post-16 travel arrangements and do not need parental consent for options that involve payment of expenses or allowances in lieu of actual transport.

Factual background

18. Mrs M’s daughter, G, is a pupil at a special school.
19. G ceased to be of compulsory school age on the last Friday of June 2025.
20. G was an ‘eligible child’ in receipt of free shared home to school transport under s.508B Education Act 1996 from 2018 onwards.
21. In 2022 the Council changed this to ‘solo’ transport with a passenger assistant after a behaviour incident led to the Council deciding that G was not suitable for shared transport. This decision was reviewed and extended in 2023 due to G’s behaviour being too unstable for shared transport.
22. The Council again reviewed transport provision in Summer 2024. An experienced transport officer visited G at home and confirmed G remained unsuitable for shared transport due to safety / behaviour concerns.
23. The Council says its policy no longer provided for solo transport options (a taxi with or without an assistant) and parents of pupils who could not be merged onto shared transport were offered a personal transport budget (PTB). This applied to G’s parents. Mrs M refused a PTB and requested solo transport.
24. Mrs M obtained support for her appeal from G’s school and the social care Family Support Worker. G had a social care package, and the worker stated the school transport provided ‘unmeasured support’ to ensure G attended school. Following removal of solo transport Mrs M was having to use social care direct payments for a carer to help with getting G and her siblings to and from school, which was preventing Mrs M using this support for the purposes intended in the social care plan. Lack of transport also meant G could not go direct from school to respite and was missing school some days.
25. The Council upheld the decision for a PTB at stage one and two of the appeal. The Council has provided me with a document stating the rationale was that solo transport was switched to PTB’s due to service pressures (review of solo routes).
26. The Council’s rationale for a PTB was that this was in G’s best interests and gave parents flexibility and control over G’s travel and was in line with its transport offer.
27. Internal emails show the Council’s position ahead of the stage two appeal was that it could hear the appeal, but parents needed to know ‘there are no solo taxi options’.
28. The decision letter in response to the stage two appeal says a Director had considered information against thresholds in the Council’s SEN post-16 travel assistance policy and rejected Ms M’s appeal.
29. Ms M complained to her Member of Parliament (MP). The Council told Ms M’s MP that ‘solo’ transport does not now form part of the Council’s ‘standard transport offer’.
30. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms M complained to us.
31. Records show G did not attend many days in September 2024, and social care was concerned about this. It allowed Ms M to use the social care budget for carers to support getting the children to and from school, but it would not increase the budget. This meant care was diverted from the purposes intended in the social care plan (respite and leisure activities for G).
32. Ms M told me that as the PTB offered was insufficient to pay for a taxi and passenger assistant, G’s father drove her when he could, but G missed some days of school and on others would arrive late and leave early to accommodate the needs of their other children.
33. The PTB was set at 70p per mile for two return journeys per day.
34. The social care budget for G was as follows:
• 9 hours per week school holidays x £16.87.
• 19 hours per week term time x £16.87.
35. In May 2025 G’s father became very unwell and was admitted to hospital. Ms M had to go back to the Council and ask for urgent assistance. The Council agreed to pay for a taxi at £16 each way, but no passenger assistant, so Ms M had to continue using social care funding to support getting G to and from school.
36. In response to my enquiries the Council sent me a copy of its post-16 policy to support its decision making highlighting the section on PTB’s.

Analysis

37. G was an eligible chid and of compulsory school age in 2024/5. The Council was at fault in referencing the law and policy for sixth form pupils in its decisions and its response to me, this was not the correct criteria to apply. The law that applied was s.508B, not s.509AA Education Act 1996 and the correct policy was that for compulsory school age pupils, not post-16 pupils.
38. The Council applied incorrect criteria. This was fault. The Council cannot impose a PTB on a family whose child is an eligible child under s.508B. S.508B(4) clearly states the Council must make arrangements for the provision of transport itself unless the parent consents to other arrangements such as a PTB.
39. Ms M clearly indicated she did not consent to a PTB. The Council could not impose this where the parent did not agree. Based on its own assessment of G, the only option was to provide solo transport itself. Failure to do so was fault and caused injustice.
40. It is concerning that the case has been considered by several officers and an appeal panel without anyone identifying the incorrect law was being applied given the pupil’s age. This casts doubt on the robustness of the appeal process and the training of panel members.
41. G missed out on school, not being able to attend at all some days and missing part of her education on days she did attend. It is not possible to say how many days G missed as the Council is unable to provide attendance data.
42. G and her family had to divert social care hours intended for developing G’s skills and providing respite to support school transport. G was also unable to attend scheduled sessions at the respite centre, as she used to travel there direct from school one day per week.
43. Ms M describes the significant pressure the loss of school transport had on the family. Ms M was managing G’s disability, the needs of all the children in the family, and then G’s father’s medical needs. While the Council did step in and provide a PTB at a rate to cover the taxi cost after G’s father was urgently admitted to hospital, this did not cover a passenger assistant, so Ms M still had to use care hours to hire someone to escort G in the taxi.
44. The period of injustice I have considered is from September 2024 to July 2025 only. From September 2025 G was post-16 and a new application had to be made under the law and policy for that age group. If Ms M is dissatisfied with the outcome of that application, she would need to make a fresh complaint and use the appeal process.

Back to top

Agreed action

Within four weeks of my final decision:

45. The Council will apologise to Ms M for the faults identified in this decision statement.
46. The Council will pay Ms M £3800, being a symbolic payment of £100 per week x 38 weeks term-time to acknowledge the impact of the fault on the family and G, including the missed social care provision hours and education, inconvenience and distress caused.

Within two months of my final decision:

47. The Council will check its guidance and training for decision makers of transport applications and appeals to ensure they apply the correct law and guidance for the age / year group of the applicant, and this is checked at every stage. The Council could consider introducing prompts or checklists to assist with this and may wish to consider using this example as a case study for training purposes.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman