Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to adhere to the statutory guidance when providing home to school transport for her son. She says her son’s journey time to and from school regularly exceeds 75 minutes. We do not find fault with the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council has failed to adhere to the statutory guidance when providing home to school transport for her son (Z). She says Z’s journey to and from school regularly exceeds 75 minutes.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s faults have impacted Z’s ability to complete his homework because of the time he arrives home from school. It has also affected Z’s home life and family time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X 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

Home to school transport

7. 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.
8. The statutory guidance (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age) says as a general guide the maximum journey time for child of secondary school age should be 75 minutes. There will be circumstances when this is not possible, for example when a child needs to travel a long way to the school named in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or when journey times are extended by traffic delays. An EHC Plan is a legal document which describes a child’s special educational needs.
9. Travel arrangements for children with special educational needs, disabilities or mobility problems can be complex. Shorter journeys may be particularly desirable, perhaps because a child’s special educational needs or disability mean they become distressed while travelling, but a child may need to travel a long way to the school that is able to meet their needs.
10. Where long journeys are unavoidable, local authorities should consider whether there are measures they can take to minimise the negative impacts for the child.

What happened

11. Z has special educational needs. He has an EHC Plan and attends the school named in the Plan.
12. Z started attending his school in September 2024. The Council arranged home to school transport for him. The transport is a taxi with other children.
13. Mrs X complained to the Council in late September. She said Z’s journey to and from school exceeded 75 minutes. She said the taxi driver was picking Z up first (7am) and dropping him off last (after 5.30pm). The Council decided to provide Z with an alternative route to school in October. Mrs X was happy with this arrangement.
14. The Council contacted Mrs X in November and said it was going to put Z back onto the original route. Mrs X referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. She said the new route was working well for Z and the original route negatively affected his ability to complete his homework and relax.
15. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in December. It said Z lives a significant distance away from his school. Even if he travelled with a parent, his journey time would be 50 minutes to one hour. The data showed Z’s journey to school was mostly 75 minutes, but on the way home it was longer because of traffic congestion. It had monitored Z’s journeys to and from school since November, but there had been roadworks and traffic incidents that had an impact on the journey. Therefore, it decided to monitor the route until the end of January 2025. It would then decide how to proceed.
16. The Council monitored Z’s route to and from school throughout January 2025. It contacted Z’s school in February and asked whether it had seen any changes with Z’s behaviour. The school said it had not.
17. The Council issued its final response to Mrs X’s complaint in mid-February. It said Z travelled home from school in the taxi on 16 occasions between 8 January 2025 and 31 January 2025. On three days, his journey time was 75 minutes or under. On 10 occasions, his journey time was between 76 and 89 minutes. One three occasions, his journey time was 90 minutes or over. It said given that on three occasions the journey was within 75 minutes, it was satisfied the longer journey times were related to traffic delays and not the unsuitability of the route. It said Z’s school had not noticed any problems or changes with Z and so the journey was not having an impact on his learning. Finally, it said it appreciated Mrs X’s frustration with its decision to move Z to an alternative route and then put him back on the original route. The officer at the time made the decision while they were investigating the original route. It provided an additional taxi for the alternative route which cost a lot of money. This was not sustainable, which is why it moved Z back to the original route. It was satisfied the original route was suitable considering how far the school is and the impact of traffic delays.
18. Mrs X emailed the Council and asked if the taxi driver could pick Z up first in the morning and then drop him off home first in the evening. The Council responded and said it would not work logistically because Z lives furthest from the school.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
20. The Council has considered information from the taxi operator, it has monitored the journey times, and it has considered the statutory guidance. The statutory guidance says the maximum journey time of 75 minutes is a general guide. However, there will be circumstances where this is not possible, such as when a journey time is extended by traffic delays and when a child needs to travel a long way to the school named in their EHC Plan. In this case, Z attends the school in his EHC Plan which is far away from where he lives. The Council accepts Z’s journey home from school is often longer than 75 minutes. However, it decided this is because of traffic delays and not the unsuitability of the route. It also checked with Z’s school, who did not report any changes in his behaviour.
21. I am satisfied the Council has followed the appropriate procedures and considered the relevant information when making its decision to stick with original transport route. Therefore, it is not a decision I can criticise, despite Mrs X’s strong disagreement with it. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Decision

22. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman