Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with an appeal against new school transport arrangements. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs F.
2. Mrs F complains the Council did not uphold her appeal against its decision to change the school transport provider for her son, L, who has special educational needs (SEN). Mrs F says the Council did not accept any of her grounds of appeal, which included that the new provider is often late and has been poorly reviewed by previous customers, and that L has struggled adjusting to dealing with the new provider.
3. Mrs F wishes the Council to return to the previous, review the suitability of its staff, and compensate her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. L attends a specialist school for children with SEN. The school is some distance from Mrs F’s home, and for this reason the Council provides a taxi service to transport him there and back.
8. In November 2024 the Council wrote to Mrs F to explain that, due to a recent increase in the number of children it was providing such transport for, it was in the process of reviewing the arrangements, to ensure it was using its resources efficiently. Following this, in December, it wrote to Mrs F again to explain it was changing L’s service to a new provider, using a new route, to begin at the start of the spring term in January 2025.
9. Upon receipt of the Council’s email, Mrs F submitted a stage 1 appeal to the Council. She said the new provider was unsuitable, that L had established a good bond with the existing provider, and that he would struggle to adjust to the change. Mrs F said she had found poor reviews of the new provider on the internet, and that the new route would increase the chances of L being late for school, which put her at risk of being fined.
10. The Council considered Mrs F’s appeal but did not uphold it. It wrote back to her later in December, saying:

• it was necessary for it to periodically review transport arrangements to ensure the efficient use of its resources. The Council acknowledged this could mean changing the arrangements in some cases;
• it was required to follow national procurement regulations, which meant using an open tendering process;
• it had sought to award longer-term contracts as part of the new arrangements, to reduce the need for further changes in the near future;
• it had previously been agreed that L could travel in a shared vehicle with other children, with the support of a personal assistant;
• it had taken account of feedback from L’s school while making the new arrangements;
• the internet reviews Mrs F had seen were related to the new provider’s public taxi service. The provider was very experienced in specialist school transport and had successfully supported many other students;
• it would closely monitor the arrangements to ensure they remained suitable for L; and
• it had carefully considered the new route to allow for minimum travelling time for all passengers.

11. The Council recommended L try out the new arrangements, and that Mrs F contact the provider directly to make introductions. It explained Mrs F could now submit a stage 2 appeal if she remained dissatisfied.
12. Mrs F submitted a stage 2 appeal in January, pointing out the Government guidance suggested a maximum 45-minute travel time for primary school children.
13. The Council arranged for the appeal to be heard by a committee of councillors in February. During the hearing, the Council explained again why it was necessary to review its arrangements and to operate an open tender process for providers. It said it had been using the provider for 15 years and that the personal assistant was there to support children during the journey.
14. Mrs F said the Council had only told her of the new arrangements just before Christmas, and that she had then been unable to contact the Council to discuss her concerns. Mrs F said the new provider was consistently late, there had been a change in the personal assistant and that she had never met the driver. Mrs F also said the route did not “make sense financially”.
15. She continued to explain L had arrived late for breakfast club at school, and suffered travel sickness in the car due to the length of the journey. Mrs F also said the new personal assistant had asked inappropriate questions.
16. The committee asked the Council about Mrs F’s point about fines. The Council said Mrs F would not be penalised due to a failing on its part. It explained the journey was 45 minutes, and that journey times for out-of-area specialist schools were permitted to exceed the limits set out in Government guidance.
17. The Council wrote to Mrs F a few days later to explain it had not upheld her stage 2 appeal. Mrs F then approached the Ombudsman to make a complaint.

Back to top

Legal background

18. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
19. At part 5, the statutory guidance ('Travel to school for children of compulsory school age', updated January 2024) 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.

20. The statutory guidance also says, at paragraph 130:

“It is for local authorities to determine which matters should be handled as complaints and which should be handled as appeals. Typically, matters such as whether a child is eligible for free travel, or whether the travel the local authority has arranged is suitable for the child’s needs will be handled as appeals. Matters such as the punctuality of a school bus, or a delay in replying to correspondence from a parent will be handled as complaints.”

Back to top

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way councils make their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information when making a decision, or acted with undue delay. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
22. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision, or make our own decision on the council’s behalf. If a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant disagrees with its decision. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person believes a council should have done something different.
23. In her appeal to the Council, Mrs F raised several points, which can broadly be grouped into concerns about the suitability of the new provider and route, and concerns about the provider’s performance, particularly its punctuality.
24. I am satisfied the Council properly addressed both aspects during the appeal process, giving reasoned responses to each point at both stages. I acknowledge Mrs F does not share the Council’s view; but it is not for me to make my own decision about the suitability of the new arrangements, nor what weight to put on her concerns about performance, and Mrs F’s disagreement does not mean the Council was at fault. I have no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision.
25. I will note the statutory guidance actually suggests concerns about a provider’s performance should not form part of an appeal, and instead be addressed through the complaints process. On a strict interpretation, therefore, the Council should have excluded this element from the appeal – although I also note the guidance says it is, ultimately, for each council to decide which process to use.
26. Either way, there was clearly no disadvantage to Mrs F for the Council to deal with both aspects through the appeal process, and so I will not consider this further.
27. If Mrs F has any ongoing concerns about the provider’s performance though, I consider this is something she should raise through the Council’s complaints process. If she remains dissatisfied then she may return to make a new complaint to us.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman