Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her child with home to school transport. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide her child with home to school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s child, Z, has an education, health, and care (EHC) plan. In February 2024, Ms X told the Council her preferred school for Z was a mainstream school. However, it was suggested a special school would better meet his needs. Ms X agreed, but was concerned about transport as her child could not travel independently and she could not transport him.
7. The Council told Ms X it would complete a referral to the transport team. Ms X said she took this to mean transport would be provided and so accepted the placement.
8. In July 2024, the transport team confirmed her application for transport had been unsuccessful.
9. The Council said it had clearly communicated to Ms X that a referral would be made for consideration of transport. The Council said its website contains clearly information regarding eligibility for travel assistance and that it never confirmed transport would be provided.
10. The Council also confirmed there was no delay in notifying her about its decision not to provide transport as the decision was made in July 2024, before the start of the academic year. The Council also said it did not delay Ms X’s right of appeal as it was available to her when the final EHC plan was issued. The Council said it was Ms X’s decision to wait until she received the outcome of her transport application.
11. There is statutory guidance which sets out eligibility for free home to school transport. The relevant sections of the guidance for this complaint are:
• Local authorities will need to assess eligibility on the grounds of special educational needs, disability, or mobility problems on a case-by-case basis. The assessment should taken 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.
• A child would not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problems, or on the grounds the route is unsafe, if the child would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.
• 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. A child would not normally be eligible solely because their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities means they are unable to accompany their child themselves.
12. The stage two appeal notes showed:
• The panel had considered the question of whether Z would be able to walk to school if accompanied.
• The panel noted there was no evidence Z was unable to physically walk to school, just that he had poor social skills and would be vulnerable to strangers.
• The panel had considered Ms X’s reasons for why she could not accompany Z to school. Noted that she had to work, and that other parent was out of the country.
• The panel noted there was no evidence to suggest Ms X had mobility issues or disability.
13. An investigation is not justified as the Council has properly considered Ms X’s application.
14. The records showed the Council considered all relevant information and properly turned its mind to the relevant question of whether Z could walk to school if they were accompanied. The Council also properly considered Ms X’s reasons for why she could not accompany Z, in line with the statutory guidance.
15. As there is no evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision, it is entitled to reach its decision, and we cannot find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman