Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide his son with home to school transport. We find the Council was at fault for failing to evidence it fully considered Mr X’s representations and the documentation he provided. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, rehear his stage two appeal with a different panel and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide his son (Y) with home to school transport. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly consider Y’s disabilities and the evidence he provided.
2. Mr X says the Council’s faults have caused severe emotional and financial distress for his family.

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. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant legislation and guidance

8. 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)

9. Local authorities will need to assess eligibility on the 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 special educational needs, disability or mobility problems. It may take account of whether they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.
10. Where the local authority determines that a child would be able to walk if they were accompanied, the general expectation is that the parent will accompany them or make other suitable arrangements for their journey to and from school. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, paragraphs 47 to 52)
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 one: 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 two; and
• Stage two: 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)

What happened

13. The Council previously provided Y with home to school transport. Mr X and Y moved address. The Council wrote to Mr X and said he would need to reapply for Y to receive transport.
14. Mr X sent his application form to the Council. In the form, he said Y has epilepsy, severe learning difficulties and does not understand danger. He also said Y spits on people.
15. The Council assessed Mr X’s application. It sent a letter to him and said Y now lives within the statutory walking distance (0.97 miles away). Therefore, he did not qualify for home to school transport.
16. Mr X appealed. He said Y cannot walk short distances because of his medical needs and challenging behaviours. He said the pedestrian route from home to school was 1.2 miles, rather than 0.97 miles. He said his previous address was also 1.2 miles away from school. He said he is the sole earner in his household, and he could not transport Y to and from school because of his work commitments. His wife does not drive, and there was no other adult available to transport Y safely. Mr X provided the Council with medical documentation.
17. The Council issued its stage one decision. It said the school was 0.97 miles from home. It also said Mr X had not provided evidence of a physical or medical need which prevented Y travelling to school, accompanied by an adult as necessary.
18. Mr X asked the Council to review his case at stage two. He reiterated Y’s medical needs. He also reiterated his concerns the Council had wrongly calculated the distance from home to school. He said the walking route to school was unsafe because of narrow and uneven pavements and multiple road crossings. He said Y’s previous transport provider withdrew due to Y’s behaviour.
19. Mr X provided further medical documentation, and a letter of support from Y’s school. The school said Y could not reasonably be expected to walk accompanied due to his behavioural issues, his unpredictability and his tendency to pull away from his parents. It also said Y has regular seizures.
20. Mr X attended a panel hearing to discuss his case. The panel noted Y’s school said he has regular seizures, but the consultant contradicted this and said Y had not had a seizure for the previous three years. It also said Y was said to be mobile and could run.
21. The Council issued its stage two decision letter. It said the walking distance falls within stated expectations. Y did not have any medical or physical need that prevented him from travelling to and from school, accompanied by an adult as necessary.

Back to top

Analysis

22. Statutory guidance states if a child has special educational needs or a disability, the Council needs to assess eligibility for home to school transport on a case-by-case basis. The Council initially rejected Mr X’s application because Y lives within the statutory walking distance. The letter does not state the Council considered the points Mr X raised about Y’s medical needs and learning difficulties. This is fault.
23. I have reviewed the panel notes from the stage two hearing. The panel noted there was conflicting information about Y’s seizures. It also noted Y is mobile and can run. However, there is no evidence from the notes the panel considered Mr X’s, and the school’s, concerns Y could not walk to school accompanied because of his behavioural issues. Mr X explained in his written appeal Y cannot follow road safety instructions and the transport provider withdrew Y’s previous transport because of spitting. He said it was therefore unreasonable for Y to walk with an adult through public routes. The school said Y is unpredictable and runs away from his parents. The notes do not indicate the panel considered this. This is fault.
24. Mr X also raised further concerns in his stage two appeal the walking route for Y was unsafe, even when accompanied by an adult. I cannot see any evidence from the notes the panel considered this. This is fault.
25. The notes also state the panel retired to consider the outcome. However, I would have expected to see notes of the panel discussing the outcome, with details on how and why it reached its decision. The absence of this is fault.
26. The Council’s said in its stage two decision letter Y did not present any medical or physical need that prevented him from travelling to and from school, accompanied by an adult as necessary. However, there is no explanation in the letter on how the panel reached that decision or the evidence it reviewed. This is fault.
27. The Council’s faults have caused Mr X frustration. He also has uncertainty about the decision the Council reached. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Action

28. By 8 April 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Rehear Mr X’s stage two appeal with a different panel.
• Remind staff who make decisions on school transport applications of the importance of clearly setting out their reasons (in the panel notes and the stage two decision letter) and what they have considered. Staff should also ensure they address the points the parents/carers raise.

29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. There was fault by the Council, which has caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman