Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to offer a bus pass as its free home to school transport offer for a journey over 3 miles to an ‘eligible’ pupil. It failed to assess whether the pupil, who has special educational needs, could manage the journey independently and wrongly put responsibility on the parent to accompany the child. This caused distress, inconvenience and financial loss to the family. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse taxi costs and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a ‘catalogue of errors’ in the Council’s decision process for home to school transport for her daughter.
2. Ms X says the fault meant a significant delay in her daughter receiving safe and affordable transport to a special school.
3. Ms X says there was a five-month delay during which:
• She had to drive her daughter to school each morning, although a chronic medical condition meant this was unsafe;
• She had to pay for a taxi to bring her daughter home;
• Some days her daughter missed school due to the lack of transport.
4. Ms X would like her taxi costs refunded and a financial payment to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have considered information provided by Ms X and the Council including the transport application, decisions and appeal documents, and the Council’s policy.
9. I have considered relevant law and guidance:
• Education Act 1996
• Statutory Guidance ‘Travel to School for children of compulsory school age’.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

12. 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.
13. ‘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 (SEN), 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)

14. A child will not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their special educational needs (SEN), 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.
15. If a Council decides a pupil is ‘eligible’ under s.508B it has discretion as to the type of support, but Statutory Guidance says it must ensure that the travel arrangements take account of the needs of the child concerned. “For example, it would not be appropriate to provide a pass for free travel on a service bus to a child whose special educational needs meant they would be unable to travel on a service bus. The arrangements should enable the child to travel in reasonable safety and comfort, and without undue stress, strain or difficulty, so that wherever possible they arrive at school ready to learn”.
16. It is for councils to decide what is reasonably practicable in each case. A council may wish to undertake an individual risk assessment or seek advice about a child’s SEN or medical needs.
17. As a general guide, the maximum journey time should be 75 minutes each way for a child of secondary school age, including any time taken to walk to a pick-up point.
18. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support or the type of transport offered. (Home to School transport guidance 2023) The Guidance recommends councils adopt a two-stage appeal process.

What happened

19. The Council offered Ms X’s child a place at an alternative provision school, which Ms X accepted. Ms X applied for transport immediately and her child started at the new school shortly after.
20. Ms X’s child was undergoing assessment for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan at the time.
21. The special school had different sites. There was confusion by the transport team about the site Ms X’s child was attending, but the sites were over 3 miles from their home.
22. In support of her application Ms X provided information that she and her child have disabilities and that she had chronic health issues that restrict her ability to drive.
23. The Council found Ms X’s child was eligible for transport support under its policy.
24. The Council’s transport offer was a bus pass. Ms X considered this inappropriate as her child could not travel by bus unaccompanied, the journey was too long and complex, and Ms X says she was unable to accompany her child by bus or drive her by car because of her own health issues. Ms X says had she accompanied her child by bus this would have taken up many hours per day of her time.
25. At stage one of the appeal process the decision letter noted:
• Ms X’s child did not have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and the referral for assessment had been refused;
• A child in need plan was in place;
• Ms X’s child had panic attacks on the bus, but did use buses when accompanied by their sibling at weekends;
• There was a family car;
• Ms X’s child received disability benefits (but the Council did not take this into account as evidence of SEN / disability);
• Travel to school took 67 minutes, using three buses, which was within Department for Education guidelines;
• Ms X had a blue badge for her own disability.
26. The Council’s decision states the information did not warrant a change to the award (of a bus pass) and it was parents’ responsibility to enable their child to attend school. It did not provide further explanation.
27. Ms X says the Council argued as there was no finalised EHC Plan there was no evidence to take her daughter’s additional needs into account. Ms X said the EHC needs assessment was refused in 2023, but a further request in Spring 2024 was agreed in Summer 2024, so it was wrong to say the assessment had been refused at the time of the transport application in Autumn 2024. Ms X said the Council would not accept their evidence of SEN / disability.
28. Ms X says a transport officer rang her immediately after the decision at stage one and advised her to delay submitting a request for a stage two appeal until the EHC Plan was finalised. Ms X followed this advice.
29. The EHC Plan was finalised in mid-February 2025, and Ms X was offered a stage two appeal hearing three days later. Ms X says this was successful and the Council then provided taxi transport. The stage two decision letter confirms this offer but does not give any explanation as to what had led the Council to change its decision.
30. The Council’s policy for compulsory school age pupils says, “Parents are expected to accompany their children to school or college where necessary until they turn 18 unless there is a good reason why it is not reasonable to expect them to do so”.
31. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Her understanding was the Council expected her to facilitate attendance if her daughter could not use the bus alone.
32. Ms X said travel by bus was not appropriate, so she tried to drive her daughter to school each morning, although this was often unsafe due to her own medical condition and she paid for a taxi at the end of the day. Ms X says this caused a lot of financial strain and she had to borrow money from family. Ms X said she received the stage one decision in December and noted the Council had got the wrong site for the school; the site her child was attending was 100 minutes via three buses, not 67 minutes and so was above the Government guidance of 75 minutes. Ms X says the Guidance also states pupils should not be expected to make several changes on public transport. Ms X told us not only was the journey lengthy, but it was too complex for her child and would put her at risk of harm. Ms X said she provided professional advice to support this view.
33. In response to my enquiries the Council told me it has not stated Ms X’s child had to travel independently; it expected parents would provide appropriate support or accompaniment where necessary. The Council confirmed the school was over three miles from the family home.
34. As the decision letters did not, in my view, make clear the Council’s decision reasons, I made further enquiries. The Council provided its original notes of the application. This states the applicant is eligible on distance and low income, the school is within guidance for travel time, and a bus pass was recommended.

Analysis

35. I have not found the Council’s decision letters very clear, none refer to eligibility on distance, and one refers to low income. The actual decision from internal records is that Ms X was eligible on both grounds.
36. There is no analysis in the original decision in response to SEN and medical information Ms X provided, although this was relevant to the type of support offered.
37. There is an error in that the Council has apparently calculated the travel distance to the wrong school site. The original application has the correct site noted but the stage one appeal refers to a different site. This is fault and casts doubt on the decision on journey time being within recommended guidelines.
38. However, the key issue in this case was whether a bus pass was a suitable transport offer to discharge the duty in s.508B to an eligible child.
39. I find fault in the Council’s decision making and find the Council’s policy to be misleading. It is implied the Council expects parents to accompany all pupils up to 18 to school regardless of journey time or distance. This is not what the law says. There is no expectation parents of eligible pupils attending qualifying schools above statutory walking distance accompany them. Accompaniment for this age group is relevant only to the two grounds where a pupil lives within statutory walking distance and it would be unsafe for them to walk, due to their SEN or disability or the nature of the route, but the journey can be made safe if a parent or carer accompanies.
40. The Council having decided Ms X’s child was eligible under its policy on distance (over three miles), and under s.508B, had discretion as to the type of support to offer. In offering a bus pass it needed to satisfy itself that this was suitable, considering individual circumstances, including any SEN or medical needs, and the journey time / complexity. In offering a bus pass the onus was on the Council to satisfy itself Ms X’s child could manage three buses and a 100 minute (or 67 minute) journey independently. It told me it never made a decision Ms X’s child could travel by bus independently. This is fault as this was the key issue on which it had to satisfy itself. The Council relied on an incorrect view Ms X was expected to accompany her child to a school over three miles away.
41. The Council also took into account irrelevant considerations. Whether Ms X’s child had an EHC Plan was not relevant. The Council had to make a decision about the type of support necessary whether or not there was an EHC Plan. Ms X’s own medical condition, or the fact she owned a car, were also not relevant, as there was no legal requirement Ms X support her child’s travel over three miles.
42. It is concerning the error about accompaniment by a parent was not picked up at any stage. This casts doubt on the robustness of the appeal process and whether decision makers have an adequate understanding of the law. In making a general statement about accompaniment up to age 18 in the policy, rather than tying this specifically to the two grounds where it applies, may cause confusion both to applicants and officers.
43. The Council reversed its decision when the EHC Plan was issued, deciding Ms X’s child could not travel by bus but needed a taxi. There was no change in Ms X’s child’s circumstances between these dates. I find on the balance of probabilities the Council would have provided a taxi, not bus pass, from Autumn 2024 had it considered the matter in line with law and guidance.
44. The fault has caused distress, inconvenience and unnecessary expense.

Back to top

Agreed Action

Within four weeks of my final decision:

45. The Council will apologise to Ms X for the fault identified in this decision statement.
46. The Council will pay Ms X a refund for taxi and milage costs of £2,288.35.
47. The Council will pay Ms X £250 to acknowledge the injustice, inconvenience and distress caused to her and to her child, including missed days of school, and the time and trouble of having to unnecessarily go through two appeals and a complaint.

Within two months of my final decision

48. The Council will revisit its policy, guidance and training for officers to ensure that it is clear to all relevant officers, panel members and members of the public:
• There is no legal expectation that parents accompany children ‘eligible’ on the grounds of distance or low income. Accompaniment is only a consideration where a previously unsafe route within statutory walking distance can be made safe if an adult accompanies the child.
• The onus is on the council to assess the individual child’s circumstances, and this may involve seeking evidence from professionals or carrying out a risk assessment and this applies irrespective of whether a pupil has an EHC Plan.
49. The Council will ensure it provides written decisions that clearly sets out the Council’s rationale for its decision.
50. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the actions set out above to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman