Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her son, Y, with home to school transport. We find the Council was at fault as its home to transport policy is not line with the statutory guidance because it does not detail how it determines a child’s home address. While this fault did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice, the Council has agreed to amend its policy to prevent a recurrence of the fault in other cases.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her son, Y, with home to school transport. She says the Council’s decision has had a significant financial impact. She also says she has had to give up work to ensure Y attends school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

Transport

6. 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)

7. The statutory guidance, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age, sets out councils’ responsibilities for making home-to-school arrangement for children of compulsory ages. The guidance says councils should make clear in their school travel policies how they will determine a child’s home address for the purposes of assessing their eligibility for travel, including in circumstances where their parents do not live together and the child spends part of the week with each parent.
8. The Council’s home to school transport policy states it will not provide transport where the pupil is not attending their nearest school, and the school is a parental preference.

What happened

9. Y’s dad (Mr Z) applied to the Council in October 2024 for Y to attend secondary school. He put his address on the application form. The Council allocated Y a place at his first preference secondary school (School A).
10. Mrs X applied to the Council in mid-May 2025 for Y to receive home to school transport to School A from September onwards. She put her address on the application form.
11. The Council responded to Mrs X’s application and said School A was not Y’s nearest suitable school. It said there was a nearer school to Mrs X’s address.
12. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. She said Y lived 50/50 between her house and Mr Z’s house. She said School A was within walking distance from Mr Z’s house, but not her house. She said Y would need to get a bus from her house on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and some Fridays. She said she could not take Y to school because she had to take her younger child to school. Finally, she said she picked School A because it was a follow on from Y’s primary school, and the other schools in the area were not suitable.
13. The Council responded to Mrs X’s appeal at stage one in June. It acknowledged Y lived between both family homes. However, it could not approve her application as School A was not Y’s nearest suitable school. It also said Y’s sibling was also attending a school that is parental preference.
14. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her appeal to stage two.
15. The Council held a stage two appeal hearing for Y’s case in August. Mrs X said School A was the only suitable school for Y. She said Y stayed at Mr Z’s house for one or two nights per week. She described the difficulties of taking Y to school because of her younger two children.
16. A panel member asked Mrs X if she received child benefit for Y at her address. Mrs X said she did. The member said Y’s application for secondary school should have stated Mrs X’s address rather Mr Z’s address. Mrs X said Mr Z made the application as she was away at the time.
17. The panel discussed that if Mrs X had used her address as Y’s primary address on the school admissions application, Y would likely have been offered a place at a nearer school. As Mrs X chose School A as a parental preference, the Council would not provide transport assistance. Transport is only given from the place where a child is habitually and normally resident.
18. The Council issued its final decision letter after the hearing and explained its decision not to offer Y home to school transport.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Council decided School A was not the nearest suitable school from Mrs X’s house. It also decided that as Mrs X receives child benefit, her house is Y’s primary address for transport purposes.
20. I accept there are closer schools to Mrs X’s house. The Council was entitled to decide, in line with its policy and the statutory guidance, School A is not the nearest suitable school to Mrs X’s house and Y does not qualify for home to school transport.
21. However, in this case, Y lives between two addresses. The statutory guidance states councils should make clear in their school travel policies how they will determine a child’s home address for the purposes of assessing their eligibility for travel, including in circumstances where their parents do not live together and the child spends part of the week with each parent. The Council decided that where a parent receives child benefit is one factor in determining a child’s home address when their parents do not live together. However, its policy is silent on this issue. It does not provide any information how it determines a child’s home address. This is fault.
22. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it said the use of child benefit records to establish a child’s home address has been a longstanding and consistently applied administrative practice. This approach has been applied uniformly over several years and is also adopted by other local authorities. However, it accepted its policy is not in line with the statutory guidance. It says it will review its policy and include further information about how it determines a child’s home address, including in circumstances like this case. I welcome this.
23. I have considered whether the Council’s fault has caused Mrs X a significant injustice and would have led to a different outcome. I do not consider it has. If the Council had not been at fault, it would have had a section in its policy explaining how it determines a child’s home address when there is a shared care arrangement. It is more likely than not it would have included a section about child benefit. The situation for Mrs X would not have been any different as the Council would still have decided her house is Y’s primary address, especially as he spends most of the school week there. It would have not awarded school transport because it considers there are other nearer suitable schools for Y to attend.
24. Mrs X says the Council’s admissions policy does not explain that child benefit determines a home address. The Council’s policy states when parents live separately and the child spends time with each parent, the home address will be treated as the place where the child sleeps for most of the school week. Y spends most of the week at Mrs X’s house. Therefore, she should have put her address on Y’s school application.

Back to top

Action

25. By 18 September 2026 the Council has agreed to review and amend its home to school transport policy to state how it determines a child’s home address for the purposes of assessing their eligibility for travel. This should include circumstances where the parents do not live together and the child spends part of the week with each parent.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

27. The Council was at fault. Although this fault did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice, the Council has agreed to implement a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman