Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered an application for home to school transport made on the grounds of special educational needs and disability. The Council delayed carrying out an individual assessment of the child’s ability to walk the distance required, wrongly relying on an expectation the parent drive the child. As a result, transport support was delayed, causing distress, inconvenience and expense to the parent. The Council has agreed to refund Ms X’s mileage, make a symbolic payment for the distress and inconvenience caused and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to remove free home to school transport from her child when it reassessed eligibility when they moved home. Ms X complains the Council did not follow law and its own policy and failed to consider all relevant factors.
2. Ms X says because of the fault she had to pay for a solicitor to send a pre-action letter (before judicial review) incurring significant legal costs.
3. Ms X says being without transport for six months caused distress and inconvenience. Ms X is a single parent, with other children, and works full time.

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated the period Ms X’s child was without Council funded transport (Spring to Autumn 2025)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
10. 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

11. 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 (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)

12. A child will not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their 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.
13. 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.
14. The Government has issued statutory guidance ‘Travel to School for children of compulsory school age’ applying on grounds of a SEN, disability, or mobility problem. This says:
• ‘To be eligible on these grounds, a child does not need to have an Education Health and Care plan (EHC plan); or have travel to school specified in their EHC plan if they have one; or attend a special school; or live beyond the statutory walking distance’;
• Councils ‘will need to assess eligibility on grounds of special educational needs, disability or mobility problems on a case-by-case basis. The assessment should take account of the child’s physical ability to walk to school and any health and safety issues related to their SEN, disability or mobility problems’;
• Information that local authorities may take into account when assessing a child’s eligibility may include (but need not be restricted to) the following, where it illustrates why the child may not be able to walk to school:
1. information provided by the parent;
2. information provided by any professionals involved in the child’s care, for example, an educational psychologist or hospital consultant;
3. information provided by the child’s school;
4. any relevant information in the child’s EHC plan if they have one;
5. any relevant information in their individual healthcare plan if they have one’.
15. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child or the nature of travel support provided.
16. 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 complaining to us.
  (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

What happened

17. Before Spring 2025, Ms X lived two miles from her child’s school. Her child received school transport although they were above age 8. This meant the Council had accepted they were an 'eligible’ child for free home to school transport at that time.
18. In Spring 2025 Ms X moved to a house 2.8 miles from the school and under the Council’s policy was required to reapply for transport based on the new address.
19. The Council initially deferred the application to seek more information from the school. It said Ms X did not give consent for it to do so; therefore, it decided the application on the information Ms X had provided.
20. The Council decided Ms X’s child was no longer eligible as they were over 8 and lived within 3 miles (statutory walking distance). The decision letter has been shared with me and is labelled as a SEN travel assistance letter and sent from the SEN Travel Broker. This is because Ms X had applied under grounds of SEN, disability, or a mobility problem.
21. Ms X set out in her original application her child’s medical conditions and details of their special educational needs including lack of awareness of danger when crossing roads. Ms X also set out reasons based on her own medical conditions and family circumstances why it would not be possible for her to accompany her child walking to school. Ms X also raised these issues on appeal.
22. At appeal the Council upheld its previous decision to refuse the application on distance grounds. The stage two appeal letter also stated it had considered the medical and other evidence and the issue of accompaniment, It found Ms X’s older child could travel independently so Ms X was available to accompany this child.
23. Ms X paid for a legal adviser to issue a pre-action protocol letter setting out why they considered the Council had not correctly considered her application.
24. The Council replied in late Summer 2025 that it had reviewed the case but maintained Ms X’s child was not eligible for transport because:
• They were attending their nearest suitable school;
• They lived within 3 miles of the school;
• It had considered her child’s EHC Plan but did not consider the needs as outlined would prevent her child walking to school if accompanied. ‘However, the Council has never expected that [child] should walk to school…it is our understanding that [child] has been driven to school by his mother and we believe this should continue’.
25. The Council explained why it had previously provided transport over a shorter distance and said this was because at that time it had accepted it was not reasonably practicable for Ms X to get her children to different schools, but her older child was now secondary age and could travel independently.
26. In September 2025 Ms X reapplied for transport asking for support from her address some days and her child’s father’s address (over 20 miles away) on other days. Ms X also asked for support while she underwent an operation in September. Ms X repeated concerns about the way the Council had considered her previous application.
27. The Council treated this as a new application. It told me this was because it was based on two addresses and because temporary support was requested while Ms X had an operation.
28. This time the Council carried out an individual travel assessment of the child. It decided to award transport, but only to and from Ms X’s address. The Council decided fleet transport with a passenger assistant was required.
29. I asked the Council what had changed between August, when it rejected the application and September, when it accepted it. The Council told me the circumstances of the application were different being based on Ms X’s operation and a new address.
30. Ms X told me as she could not afford to go ahead with a judicial review which may cost £10,000 in legal costs she was advised to make a new application in Autumn 2025 and she did so using two addresses (her own and that of her child’s father) to try and prompt a new assessment. Ms X says this application was successful and transport is now in place.

Analysis

31. The Council’s initial decision letter and first stage appeal did not show the Council had considered the application on grounds of SEN, disability, or a mobility problem, only distance. This is fault. The Council had to consider the grounds Ms X had applied under and assess her child’s physical ability to walk to school and any health and safety issues related to their SEN, disability or mobility problems.
32. The Council did consider the medical information at stage two of the appeal process. It found that Ms X could accompany her child to school as she no longer needed to accompany her older child. The decision letter does not adequately explain how the Council had decided Ms X’s child could physically walk 2.8 miles considering their SEN, disability or mobility problems. It did not address the health and safety issues Ms X had raised. This is fault. The Council needed to explain why it was satisfied Ms X’s child could walk 2.8 miles. If it decided, with reference to the evidence available, that the child could do so, it then needed to go on and consider if the child could walk if accompanied and if it was reasonable for Ms X to accompany the child. The Council’s response only addressed the last part of this test, whether Ms X was available to accompany her child.
33. The Council considered these matters afresh on receipt of the solicitor’s letter. It said the needs as set out in the EHC Plan would not prevent the child walking to school if accompanied. This was not sufficient. The statutory guidance is clear the Council must look beyond the EHC Plan at all the evidence available to it and provided its rationale for why it did not consider this evidence would prevent Ms X’s child from walking 2.8 miles if accompanied. The Council also did not explain how Ms X would be able to walk with her child given her other responsibilities (two other children) and her own medical problems.
34. The Council’s response to the solicitor stated that it had never expected Ms X’s child to walk to school as its understanding was Ms X would drive her child and it considered this should continue. This is fault. The law and guidance is clear that the test the Council must apply is a walking test. Whether the family would in practice use a car is irrelevant to the decision the Council had to make.
35. Ms X reapplied in Autumn 2025. The Council treated this as new information, but in practice nothing had changed. Ms X was due to have an operation, but she had mentioned this previously, including in August, it was not new information. I also have not seen evidence the transport awarded is temporary. The evidence provided indicates the transport was awarded on SEN, disability or mobility problems of the child. There is no mention in the documents of Ms X’s medical issues, or transport being awarded on a temporary basis, or the child being able to walk if they were accompanied.
36. While Ms X did apply using two addresses, transport has only been granted to one (it is common for council policies only to pick up and drop off from one address). Adding the address of the father to the application was not the reason the new application was granted when the old one had been declined.
37. From the evidence available I do not find any significant difference between the application Ms X made in Spring 2025 and Autumn 2025. The Council should have done an individual travel assessment of Ms X’s child’s ability to walk in Spring 2025, as it did in Autumn 2025. If it had done so, then on the balance of probabilities it would have reached the same conclusion in Spring as it did in the Autumn, that Ms X’s child was not able or safe to walk 2.8 miles even if accompanied. Transport would then have been in place six months earlier.
38. Ms X and the child’s father managed the transport between them for this six-month period. They incurred petrol costs, and it was inconvenient and stressful.
39. Ms X has asked us to consider recommending reimbursement of her legal costs. I find Ms X was correctly signposted to the Ombudsman by the Council after her stage two appeal. Ms X exercised a personal preference to use solicitors instead. We do not generally ask councils to reimburse legal costs when someone can use the Ombudsman process for no cost to achieve the same outcome.

Back to top

Agreed Action

Within four weeks of my final decision:

40. The Council will pay Ms X a mileage allowance for the period she was without transport.
41. The Council will pay Ms X £500 to acknowledge the inconvenience, time and trouble in having to take her chid to school and that she incurred during the appeal and complaint process.

Within two months of my final decision:

42. The Council will remind staff and panel members who make decisions on school transport applications of the importance of clearly setting out their reasons and what they have considered, making sure they have addressed all elements of law, policy and statutory guidance relevant to the individual application. The Council may wish to consider the use of pre-populated forms, prompts or checklists to assist officers.
43. The Council will ensure it carries out individual assessments of need where an application is made on SEN/disability grounds at the time the application is received and not rely solely on information in EHC Plans.
44. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman