Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided not to provide his child with transport to the school named on their Education Health and Care Plan. Mr X says this impacted his work and caused his child distress. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly decided not to provide his child with transport to the school named on their Education Health and Care Plan.
2. Mr X says this impacted his ability to work and caused his child distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered all comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

10. 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. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
11. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. 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.
  (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

What happened

12. Y has an EHC Plan.
13. Y considered attending two educational placements, School A and School B. School A is closer to Y’s home than School B.
14. The Council told Mr X it considered Y’s needs could be met in School A. Mr X told the Council that Y preferred School B and asked it to name School B in the Plan.
15. In July, the Council told Mr X it would not provide transport to School B because School A is closer and could meet Y’s needs. Mr X told the Council he could take Y to School B every day. The Council told Mr X if his circumstances changed and he could no longer take Y to School B, it would transfer Y to School A. Upon Mr X’s request, the Council named School B in the Plan.
16. In September, Y started School B. Mr X applied to the Council for transport for Y to and from school. The Council declined his application.
17. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision not to provide transport. He said taking Y to and from school impacted his work. The Council’s school transport appeal review panel upheld the Council’s decision not to provide transport.
18. Mr X escalated his appeal to stage two. The Council’s appeal committee considered Mr X’s appeal and upheld the Council’s decision not to provide transport.
19. Mr X told the Ombudsman he believes School A could not meet Y’s needs.

Analysis

20. The Council exercised its discretion and named School B on Y’s EHC Plan. I am satisfied Mr X made an informed decision that he would be liable for transporting Y to and from School B. I am satisfied the Council followed its transport appeals process properly, and its process is in line with statutory guidance. The Council evidenced good practice considering using its discretion for Y’s benefit. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making, and therefore cannot criticise the outcome.
21. Mr X says he believes School A could not meet Y’s needs. We cannot direct changes to the EHC Plan sections about a child’s needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman