Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to not to consider an appeal, against a refusal of school transport assistance, because it is late. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs C.
2. Mrs C complains the Council refused to accept a stage 2 appeal against its refusal to provide free school transport for her daughter, F. As a result, Mrs C says she now has to take F to school herself, which means she may need to stop working.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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 C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In May 2025 Mrs C applied to the Council to provide school transport assistance for F, who was due to enter Year 7 in September. The Council considered Mrs C’s application but refused it. It explained this was because there was a suitable school for F which was nearer to her home.
8. In June Mrs C submitted a stage 1 appeal. She explained she had chosen F’s school because she had special needs, and said they had not been “impressed” with the nearer school. In response, the Council said it had confirmed F would have been offered a place at the nearer school, had Mrs C applied for it. Because Mrs C had chosen for F to attend a school further away, this meant she was not entitled to travel assistance. It went on to explain a “suitable school does not mean the most suitable school”, and that Mrs C had provided no evidence to show the nearer school would have been unsuitable for F.
9. Mrs C says she did not receive the Council’s response to her stage 1 appeal, and had to chase the Council for it. Once she did, she submitted a stage 2 appeal, reiterating her points and providing some more detail about F’s medical circumstances, which meant she was unable to walk long distances. Mrs C provided copies of medical appointment letters in support of her application.
10. However, the Council refused to accept the stage 2 appeal, because Mrs C had submitted it outside the 20 working day deadline for doing so.
11. Mrs C then made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Legislative background

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, 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)

Back to top

Analysis

14. The Council’s school transport policy explains applicants have 20 working days to submit a stage 2 appeal, after the refusal of their stage 1 appeal. By my calculation, Mrs C missed this deadline by five working days. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse to accept her appeal, according to its policy.
15. I understand Mrs C says she did not receive the Council’s stage 1 appeal decision, and this is the reason she was unable to submit a stage 2 appeal on time. However, in order for us to recommend the Council now offer Mrs C a late appeal, I would need to see evidence to show it was the Council’s fault Mrs C did not receive its decision. There are many potential reasons why this may have happened, and it is unlikely further investigation will uncover enough evidence to allow me to draw a sound conclusion one way or the other.
16. In any case, I cannot overlook that Mrs C’s situation does not appear to meet any of the criteria set out in the Council’s policy. There are various circumstances under which the Council will provide transport assistance, but in all cases the child in question must be attending their nearest suitable school, which F is not.
17. In response to her stage 1 appeal, the Council explained Mrs C had not provided any evidence to show the nearer school was unsuitable. In her stage 2 appeal, there is no such evidence either – the supporting information Mrs C provided was simply to show F was unable to walk long distances, and had nothing to do with the suitability of either school.
18. This being so, even if the Council did now provide Mrs C with a late appeal, I do not consider this could plausibly lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

19. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman