Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly stopped free home to school transport for his child, Y. He also complained about the Council’s charges for the discretionary spare seat transport. There is no fault in the way the Council made its decision during the application, stage one and two appeal, so we cannot criticise the decision. Matters around charges have been resolved between Mr X and the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly stopped providing free home-to-school transport for his child, Y, in September 2024 with no prior notice. Y has special educational needs (SEN) and requires adult supervision on their journey. Y received free transport until this point, but the Council said Y was no longer eligible under its post-16 transport policy. Mr X says Y missed around six to seven months of education because the family could not make alternative arrangements. When transport was later offered under a spare seat scheme, the Council wanted to charge the full annual contribution of £1,028 even though only five months of the school year remained. After discussions with the finance team, the Council agreed to reduce the payments and matters around cost were resolved. However, Mr X still disagrees with the Council’s decision to stop free school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr 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 guidance

SEN transport

6. A child will not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem, or on the grounds that the route is unsafe, if they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.
7. A child will not normally be eligible solely because their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities mean they are unable to accompany their child themselves. Councils must consider cases where the parent says there are good reasons why they are unable to accompany their child, or make other suitable arrangements for their journey, and make a decision on the basis of the circumstances of each case.

Transport appeals

8. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
9. 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)

The Council’s post-16 transport policy

10. A young person is referred to as someone who is of sixth form age (16-18 year olds) in the Council’s policy.
11. The vast majority of young people do not receive or require travel support from the Council and, unless the circumstances are exceptional, the only category of young persons of sixth form age the Council will consider providing travel assistance for are those with an Education Health and Care Plan, a disability or learning difficulties. In considering whether to provide travel assistance the Council will have regard to the following:
• The needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practicable to attend a particular establishment to receive education or training if no arrangements were made;
• Distance and journey time from the student’s home to establishments of education and training, the cost of transport there and alternative means of facilitating attendance at establishments;
• The nature of the route or alternative routes which the young person could reasonably be expected to take;
• The nature of the young person’s special educational needs, disability or learning difficulty;
• Anything said in an EHC plan about transport;
• The best use of the Council’s resources.
12. The Birmingham City Council 16-18 Transport provision is a subsidised offer and the young person and/or his or her parents or carers will be required to contribute towards the cost of this, which in the case of Personal Transport Budgets will be deducted from the Personal Transport Budget offer. The amount that will be required is £1028 per academic year or £390 if the young person is from a low-income family.

What happened

13. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
14. The Council says it sent letters to families of year 11 students affected by the post-16 transport policy. The deadline to apply for discretionary home to school transport assistance for the 2024/25 academic year was 31 May 2024. Mr X made a late application on 4 September 2024, at the start of the academic year. He says Y always received free home to school transport before this and was not aware this would stop. Council decided on 13 September to award a travel bus pass as the family did not meet the criteria for discretionary home to school transport.
15. Mr X appealed this decision on 13 September and received a stage one response on 8 November. Mr X did not provide any supporting evidence, so the Council only considered the appeal and EHC Plan. It upheld its original decision.
16. Mr X progressed his appeal to stage two on 1 December. The appeal panel considered the appeal on 6 February 2025 but deferred making a final decision until 3 March as it requested Mr X provide more supporting evidence. Mr X provided medical documents, but these were outdated and the panel decided they did not meet the threshold to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances needed for the transport assistance.
17. The Council considered alternative support and offered a discretionary spare seat that was available. The Council advised parents must pay a yearly contribution of £1028 towards the cost of transport. Mr X accepted this offer and the transport started in March 2025. Y did not attend school for the 6/7 months prior as their parents said they could not arrange transport due to work commitments. The Council asked for the full payment of £1028. Mr X expected the figure to be adjusted as there was only five months left of the academic year.
18. Mr X complained to the Council on 13 March 2025 and received a response saying he must pay for the full year regardless of how many days the transport was used for.
19. Mr X progressed the complaint to stage two on 14 March. The Council responded on 1 April, upholding its original decision. It said the £1028 charge is only a contribution towards the actual cost and needs to be paid for the year, regardless of how many days Y uses the seat.
20. Mr X did not agree with the Council and complained to us in April 2025. Mr X and the Council have since resolved the matter around charges. The Council reduced the costs to only reflect the remaining days that Y uses the transport.

My findings

21. The Council refused Mr X’s application for discretionary transport in line with its post-16 transport policy. It considered the limited available evidence and decided the application did not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances to be eligible. It considered any alternative support it could provide and offered a travel bus pass. There is no fault in the way the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.
22. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision at stage one but did not provide any additional supporting evidence. The Council clarified that it does not expect Y to travel alone but it is the parent’s responsibility to arrange as work commitments are not considered exceptional circumstances. It reviewed Y’s EHC Plan and determined Y had no challenges with physical mobility or other needs that would stop her travelling with a parent/carer where necessary. The Council properly considered Mr X’s appeal at stage one in line with its policy, so we cannot question the outcome.
23. Mr X appealed at stage two and provided supporting medical evidence. The independent panel found these were not within the last 12 months as requested. It found the evidence did not meet the criteria for discretionary transport. It calculated the journey from home to school was reasonable and met the Department for Education’s guidelines. The parents were not on low income. The panel determined that Y did not have physical mobility challenges. It considered alternative support available and offered a discretionary spare seat. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, information from the Department for Education, its own policies and information from Mr X. The panel followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and we cannot therefore criticise it.
24. 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.
25. As we found no fault in the way the Council followed the process during the application stage, stage one and two appeal, we cannot question the Council’s decision to not offer discretionary transport. It was the parent’s responsibility to arrange for Y to attend school. Mr X advised that Y missed 6/7 months of education due to having no transport. We appreciate the situation was difficult, but the loss of education was not caused by any fault by the Council.
26. The Council sought a contribution of £1028 towards the spare seat transport assistance for the full year. This is in line with its policy. The Council has since reduced the contribution and Mr X advised he is now satisfied with the amount charged. So, there is nothing more we can achieve for Mr X or Y.

Back to top

Decision

27. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman