Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council provided inadequate information and did not properly consider her application and appeals for free school transport for her child. We find fault in the Council’s actions for the misleading guidance at application stage and giving wrong information in its stage one appeal response. This caused undue distress to Mrs X and the Council should apologise.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council gave her misleading information when she applied for her child’s school place, leading her to believe she would qualify for free school transport. She says it also failed to properly consider her application and appeal for free transport. Mrs X says this has caused her undue distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and statutory guidance

School transport arrangements

6. 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. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

Transport appeals

7. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
8. 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)

Back to top

My findings

Background

9. Mrs X applied to School Y for her child under the impression that her child would be entitled to free school transport. Her older children also attended School Y and received free school transport. She says she used the Council’s website and policy guidance to apply and says there was no clear guidance telling her that her child was not eligible for free school transport.
10. Mrs X made a school transport application which the Council rejected. The Council notified Mrs X that her child was not eligible six weeks before school started. It said the reason for rejection was because School Y was not the nearest suitable school, but a preference, so her child was not eligible.
11. Mrs X appealed the decision, and the Council upheld its decision. At stage one, it explained that school Y was over 3 miles in distance but was not the nearest suitable school, so Mrs X’s child was therefore not eligible. Mrs X requested a stage two hearing. At stage two the Council upheld its original decision. It explained that school Y was the nearest suitable school but was within 3 miles, so did not meet the qualifying distance for free school transport.
12. The Council advised us of a meeting between the head teacher at School Y and community transport team that resulted in agreeing free school transport for admissions during the 2025/26 academic year for those starting in year 7. It has told us that Mrs X’s child now receives free school transport.

Misleading information at application stage

13. School Y is the nearest suitable school for Mrs X’s child. The Council was wrong for rejecting Mrs X’s application on the grounds that School Y s not the nearest suitable school.
14. The Council acknowledged that its guidance for parents was not as clear as it should be. At the stage two appeal, it explained it had started discussions with its Community Transport team to add additional guidance, so parents are fully informed about transport support before making a final school application.
15. Mrs X was not able to make an informed decision during the application stage because of the lack of clear information. Her older children also attended school Y and received free school transport, so Mrs X was under the impression her younger child would be eligible. The Council did a review and acknowledged in the stage one response that the policy had been wrongly applied, and her older children should not have received free school transport. She was not able to make proper arrangements for her child’s school transport because the Council did not give clear information and gave contradictory reasons for rejecting her application. This caused undue distress and uncertainty. This is fault and the Council should apologise for this.

Consideration of distance and safety of route

16. The Council gave evidence of how it calculated the walking distance from Mrs X’s home to the school entrance. This showed a distance of exactly three miles.
17. The statutory qualifying distance for secondary-age pupils is over three miles. The Council has correctly decided that Mrs X’s child does not meet the distance criterion for free school transport as the route is exactly three miles.
18. It applied the correct test at Stage Two, explained its decision clearly, and reached a conclusion it was entitled to make.
19. The Council gave evidence of how it ensured the route to be safe and that Mrs X also determined this as a safe walking route.
20. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
21. As there was no fault in how the Council made its decision based on the distance or safe walking route criteria, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Actions

22. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will remedy the injustice caused by issuing:
• An apology to Mrs X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• A payment of £100 to Mrs X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the misinformation at application stage and during the appeals process.
23. I have not made any service improvement recommendations as the Council has already taken steps to review and address school transport guidance to parents.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman