Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to reimburse her for the money she spent transporting her children to and from school. We find no fault with the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to reimburse her for the money she spent on transporting her children to and from school. She says she only transported her children because the Council provided unsuitable transport.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s faults have had a detrimental financial impact. It has also affected her children’s welfare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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(1), 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

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 Council’s home to school transport appeals process

8. Step one: Complaints about school transport are always first looked at by a panel of transport officers. The panel will view all the evidence and information a parent has put forward and decide whether the normal school transport rules should be set aside or not.
9. Step two: If a parent is not happy with the panel’s decision, then their case will be heard by the Appeals Committee.

What happened

10. Mrs X’s children have special educational needs and are eligible for home to school transport. The Council provided them with transport in a shared taxi.
11. Mrs X appealed and said she wanted the Council to provide her children with their own separate transport. The Council refused to provide separate transport. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision and complained to us.
12. We issued a decision (case 24012759) and said the Council had failed to properly consider all relevant information when dealing with Mrs X’s appeal. We asked the Council to complete a new appeal. We asked it to consider whether the journey time to and from school was reasonable, Mrs X’s safety/safeguarding concerns and whether a child singing in the taxi impacted Mrs X’s children. We also asked it to consider whether other means of travel would meet Mrs X’s children’s needs.
13. The Council wrote to Mrs X at step one of its appeals process at the end of January 2025. It said there were no exceptional grounds to set aside its policy, and it would not provide transport in a shared taxi. It noted Mrs X had agreed to meet the taxi partway through the journey to reduce the time her children had to spend in the taxi. However, this arrangement had not worked as the pupils failed to arrive at agreed pick up point.
14. The Council also said it had agreed to change the size of the vehicle from a four-seater taxi to a six-seater taxi which would allow Mrs X’s children to have space from the other passenger. This would mitigate the safeguarding concerns.
15. Mrs X contacted the Council and said she was unhappy with its decision. She said the driver was almost always late which meant the agreement to pick her children partway through the journey had failed. She asked to be reimbursed for the money she had spent transporting her children to and from school.
16. The Appeals Committee considered Mrs X’s case. Mrs X and her husband attended the hearing, and the transport officer. The transport officer said they had made changes. This included reducing the number of children in the taxi, changing the driver from male to female and using a larger vehicle so Mrs X’s children could be further away from other pupils. They also said Mrs X’s children could use headphones to reduce the impact of the noise in the taxi.
17. Members of the Committee asked the transport officer about the process of providing a fuel payment so parents can transport their children to and from school. The officer said it is a retrospective payment. To claim this the parents would need to submit a form signed and stamped by the school to confirm attendance.
18. Mrs X explained she had taken her children to school because they had refused to get in the taxi and she did not want their school placements to break down. She stopped this arrangement due to cost and their attendance at school was now very low. She also said her children had used headphones, but they could still hear the singing and music. This was affecting their sensory needs. Finally, she said sitting at the back of the taxi was unsuitable for her child.
19. Mrs X and her husband said they would take their children to and from school if the Council provided fuel allowance. However, they wanted the Council to reimburse them for the several months they were taking their children to school.
20. Members of the Committee considered the case. They decided the arrangements were not working and the main concern was to ensure Mrs X’s children were in school. They approved a fuel allowance of 45p per mile for Mrs X to take her children to and from school until July 2026. They decided not to approve a reimbursement for Mrs X’s fuel when she was transporting her children because it was voluntary and the transport team had made efforts to ensure better attendance.
21. The Council sent a detailed decision letter to Mrs X after the hearing. It said the Committee recognised the urgency to ensure better attendance at school for her children. The evidence suggested their attendance was greater when she took them to and from school. Therefore, it had decided to approve a fuel payment. However, the Committee had decided not to reimburse her for her fuel while a taxi was available. The transport team had put in place adjustments, such as shortening the journey, providing a larger taxi and providing a female driver. These adjustments had not worked, which is why it was now recommending a fuel payment.

Back to top

Analysis

22. Mrs X says the Council provided unsuitable transport for her children. Therefore, it should reimburse her for the money she spent transporting her children to and from school.
23. 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.
24. The Committee upheld Mrs X’s appeal and decided the transport arrangements were not working despite several adjustments the transport team had put in place. It also considered Mrs X’s request for a reimbursement. The Council’s decision letter explains the Committee decided not to approve a reimbursement because of the adjustments the transport team had made to ensure better attendance for Mrs X’s children at school. As these had failed, it had decided to now approve a fuel payment. That was a decision it was entitled to make.
25. I appreciate Mrs X strongly disagrees with the Committee’s decision. However, there was no fault in the way it made its decision, and therefore we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman