Summary: There was no fault in how the Council’s independent panel considered Mrs X’s appeal for free home to school transport for her child Y. The Council was at fault for the delay in completing the appeal process but it provided a free bus pass to Y during this period which was a sufficient remedy for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse free home to school transport for her child Y. In particular she complained that the Council incorrectly applied its policy on measuring the walking distance between their home to Y’s school and it did not properly consider her safety concerns.
2. Mrs X said, as a result, they were caused stress, uncertainty and frustration.

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint.
8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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 law and guidance

10. 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)

11. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
12. 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 home to school travel policy 2023

13. The Council’s 2023 school transport policy states that eligibility for travel assistance is determined by using the Council’s digital mapping system to measure the distance of the shortest available walking route from outside the child or young person’s home to the nearest open gate at the school.

What happened

14. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
15. In May 2024 Mrs X applied for free school transport for Y to their secondary school. She requested the Council provide a free bus pass.
16. In June 2024 the Council refused Y’s application. It said the shortest available walking route to Y’s school was under the statutory walking distance of 3 miles.
17. In late June 2024 Mrs X registered a stage one appeal with the Council. She said the walking route to Y’s school was unsafe. She said there was unmanaged overgrowth of vegetation along a section of the route meaning Y would need to walk on a busy road to avoid the overgrowth. She added that overgrowth was the responsibility of a private landowner and due to the nesting regulations, it would be present for most part of the year. She also added that there were reports of antisocial behaviour and related incidents along the walking route.
18. In July and August 2024 Mrs X contacted the Council for an update on her appeal. The Council apologised and said it had passed Mrs X’s emails to the relevant officer for a response.
19. In mid-September 2024 the Council issued the stage one appeal outcome. It apologised for the delay in issuing this outcome. It said that it had passed on Mrs X’s feedback to the senior management so that they were aware of the delay Mrs X had incurred. It said that it was managing an ‘unprecedented number of applications and appeal requests since Summer” which had led to this delay.
20. The Council refused Mrs X’s stage one appeal. It said:

• the shortest available walking route (2.963 miles) was under the statutory maximum distance of 3 miles.
• its Highways team had cut back the overgrowth after the bird nesting season and that this team was aware of the challenges of managing the vegetation between February and August due to the nesting season. It said that its Highways team would continue to monitor the situation.
• no journey would be without risk and that the statutory requirement was for pupils to be accompanied as necessary. It said that any dangers “which may arise if the child was unaccompanied did not form part of the walking assessment.”

21. In early October 2024 Mrs X submitted a stage two request:

• Mrs X said the Council had not measured or applied the walking distance to Y’s school properly and in line with its policy. She explained that the Council had measured the end point of the walking route to a footpath outside the school rather than to the ‘nearest open school gate” which was what its policy stated. She said that calculating the distance to the open school gate would take the walking route to over 3 miles.
• Regarding safety of the route, Mrs X said that cutting back the overgrowth did not resolve the problem indefinitely due to the restrictions posed by the nesting season. She also told the Council of an incident/attack on a third party that took place on the walking route. She said she was unable to accompany Y due to her health. An alternative service (a guided busway) suggested by the Council was unreliable and too busy.
• Mrs X also said that she had asked the Council to complete a new gap analysis (Gap analysis is an assessment to calculate the number of gaps in traffic available to cross a road safely) to assess the safety of the walking route to enable her to use its findings to support her appeal but she had not received this. She said that the Council’s previous analysis was not up to date as the circumstances were different in real time; Y’s school had increased its uptake of pupils thereby creating more traffic, the use of one-hour intervals instead of five-minute intervals did not provide a real time analysis of the heaviest periods of traffic. She also added that the analysis did not state if cyclists were included too.

22. In November 2024 the Council told Mrs X that it had decided to carry out an updated gap analysis before it could hold a stage two hearing. Because this delayed Mrs X’s appeal, the Council provided Y with a free bus pass until the end of the summer term 2025.
23. In late May 2025 Mrs X contacted the Council to request an update on the gap analysis. The Council responded and said it had undertaken a gap analysis which confirmed that the walking route to Y’s school was available. It told Mrs X that if she still felt that Y was unable to walk the route accompanied as necessary then she would need to appeal against the decision.
24. Mrs X asked the Council to share the gap analysis outcome, which it did. She also said she wanted to continue with the appeal process.
25. In July 2025 the Council heard Mrs X’s stage two appeal. Records of the meeting showed that:

• In response to Mrs X’s safety concerns regarding the traffic flow, the Council undertook an updated gap analysis in January 2025 which showed that the walking route to Y’s school was available and that the majority of pupils used this walking route.
• Mrs X raised concerns about the updated gap analysis. She said that the traffic outside the school and the number of cyclists was higher than listed in the gap analysis and it did not report the ‘near misses’ when children crossed the road as cars pulled round the buses. Mrs X noted that it was a 20mph zone but it was still not safe due to reckless behaviours from drivers in congested traffic. Mrs X added that there was also an increase in both e-scooters and scooters which she was not sure were included in the Council’s assessment. The Council confirmed they were. The panel stated that most children had to cross the road to reach the school.
• The Council stated that the road was compliant with the Road Safety Great Britain best practice guidelines and that Y’s school would not qualify for a formal crossing as there was not sufficient traffic. The panel noted that the village could apply for a crossing if they wanted.
• The Council said that guided buses were now more frequent than before. It also said that the pathways and crossings along the bus way were an available walking route. The panel noted that buses had to reduce their speed to 40 mph when nearing crossings. Mrs X said that many of the buses were full especially on the return journey.
• The Council said the incident involving a third-party that Mrs X had highlighted in her appeal request had not happened on the walking route.

26. The panel queried the overgrowth of vegetation to which the Council said photographs of the vegetation presented as part of the appeal were old and that since then its Highways team had monitored and cut back the vegetation outside the nesting season. The Council said that private ownership had caused some difficulties, but its Highways team was aware and that the road safety officer confirmed that the path was acceptable to be used.
27. Regarding the measurement of the walking route:

• Mrs X said the Council had not correctly calculated the distance to a gate, in line with its policy which stated “to the nearest open gate”. She said it had measured to an entrance point to the school where buses stopped and that a gate to the school was available which would take the distance over three miles and above the statutory limit.
• The Road Safety Officer stated that the route would be measured to a gate if it was a normal pedestrian gate; the gate which Mrs X had mentioned was the entrance to a playground. The Council stated that the point to which the distance was measured was the entrance where pupils accessed the school site and was where Education Property deemed the school grounds. The panel noted that a standard point was selected at the school and all school routes were measured to that point. The Council representative confirmed that a point was selected at the school (to which all routes were measured to) when schools had numerous or no gates.
• The meeting notes showed that the panel acknowledged that the policy stated “nearest open gate” rather than “suitable entrance”, however the designated point was the entrance to the school land, and the gates shown by Mrs X were to security-controlled points of the school rather than being the school entrance. The panel noted that a single designated point was used which ensured consistent and fair application of its policy to all applications and previous decisions. The notes showed that it was resolved by majority that that the Council had applied its policy correctly.

28. Regarding accompaniment, Mrs X said she was unable to accompany Y for health reasons and that there was no one else who could accompany them. The panel noted that it was the parent’s responsibility to arrange Y’s journey to school (pay for a bus seat, use a guided bus or cycle) and with time Y would become more independent which would include walking to school on their own. The panel agreed unanimously that there was not enough evidence to justify making an exception to the policy.
29. In late July 2025 the Council wrote to Mrs X with its decision to refuse her appeal. It said that it had considered Mrs X’s concerns about the safety of the walking route due to the traffic flow and overgrown vegetation. It had completed a gap analysis which showed the walking route was available and its Highways team had monitored and cut back the overgrowth. explained that its policy had been applied correctly, “and in the interest of fairness and consistency” and that there were not exceptional circumstances related to Mrs X’s health and work reasons to warrant a move from its policy.

Findings

Appeal

30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for school transport appeals, that is the role of the Council. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, the law says we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. If we find there was fault in the decision-making process, we normally ask a council to hear the appeal again. We do not come to a view on whether the appeal should be upheld.
31. The statutory distance is measured by the shortest route along which a child, accompanied if necessary, may walk safely. Mrs X said Y’s walking route to school was not safe. Records of the stage two hearing showed that the panel noted that in light of Mrs X’s concerns about the traffic flow, the Council undertook a gap analysis, which showed that the walking route to Y’s school was safe and available. It also addressed Mrs X’s further concerns about the gap analysis and safety of the walking path; it reassured her that the Council’s Highways team was aware of and had trimmed the overgrown vegetation and that this path was acceptable to be used. There was no fault in how the panel considered Mrs X’s concerns about the safety of the walking route.
32. Regarding distance measurement, the meeting notes showed that the gates Mrs X wanted the Council to measure to were within the school grounds (therefore not an access point/entrance to the school grounds) and to security-controlled parts of the school. It also noted the Council’s rationale to use a single designated point when schools had numerous or no entrance gates to ensure consistency in the application of its policy. It was not fault for the Council to choose the same designated school entrance point to measure distances to, to ensure consistency in its decision-making. The panel acknowledged that the wording in the Council’s policy was not clear. The Council has already addressed this and has amended its transport policy for 2025 to add further clarity. It now states that it measures to the nearest designated gate at the school, as recognised by the Council.

Delay

33. The Council took too long to complete Mrs X’s appeal process which was fault. It also failed to update Mrs X of the outcome of the gap analysis and the next steps of her appeal until she contacted it for an update in May 2025. This was also fault. However, the Council gave Y a free bus pass until July 2025 which was a sufficient remedy for the uncertainty and frustration caused by its faults.

Back to top

Decision

34. I found fault causing injustice and the Council’s actions already remedied that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman