Summary: There was fault in the way the Council communicated its home to school transport policy for September 2025 school admissions. There was also fault in how it considered Mr X’s appeal for home to school transport. These faults have caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty over the transport appeal committee’s decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and offer him a fresh stage two appeal hearing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide his child Y with free transport to their catchment secondary school following a change in the Council’s home to school transport policy in 2024. Mr X complained the Council provided misleading information about the policy change, which included a link to the Council’s old transport policy and the committee failed to properly consider this and the family’s exceptional circumstances. In addition, his representative was only given a limited right to speak, and they were not advised of this in advance. Mr X says this has caused them frustration and uncertainty.

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. 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law 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’ includes children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above).
9. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
10. 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: review by independent appeal panel. Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request to escalate to stage 2, an independent appeal panel considers written and verbal representations. Within five working days following this, 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)

11. The statutory code of guidance sets out that:
• The statutory walking distances are used to determine whether a child is eligible for free travel to school. This is not necessarily the shortest distance by road. The route may include footpaths, bridleways, other pathways and alternative entrances to the school.
• Where the schools are beyond walking distance, councils may consider it more appropriate to measure the shortest road route or the straight line distance. It should be made clear in the council’s school travel policy how the route will be measured.
• It should be clear to parents how they can find out which is their nearest school for admissions purposes and which is the nearest for school free transport purposes.
• Councils must publish their travel policy on their website and include information about their school travel policy in their composite prospectus for school admissions.
12. The guidance says an effective school travel policy will:
• Be easy for parents to find on the council’s website;
• Be clearly written so that parents may easily understand it;
• Enable parents to understand the circumstances in which a child is eligible for free travel to school;
• Tell parents how and when they should apply for free travel to school; and
• Tell parents how they may appeal against the council’s decision in relation to travel to school for their child.

The Council’s home to school travel policy

13. The Council operates catchment areas for admission to some of the schools in its area. This means those living in a certain geographical area get priority if a school is oversubscribed. Until 2024 the Council provided school transport to the catchment area school for those living over three miles away.
14. In September 2024 the Council implemented a new Home To School Travel Policy. Under the new policy the Council only provides free transport to new applicants attending the nearest qualifying school to home. This meant certain towns and villages no longer qualified for transport to a catchment school and the nearest qualifying school may be in another council’s area.
15. The policy explained the nearest suitable school for school travel purposes may not be the catchment school used for admissions purposes. It said:
• ‘When deciding on eligibility for assistance with transport, the measurement from home to school will be taken from the fixed point within the property to the nearest entrance point (not always the main entrance) to the school following the nearest available walked route, as defined by the Council’s Geographical Information System (GIS)’.
• ‘The distance is not the shortest distance by road and the route may include footpaths, public rights of way, bridleways and other pathways identified on the GIS’.
• ‘Parents have the right to preference any school of their choice when applying for a school place, they do not however have a right to free-of-charge travel arrangements to that school. Travel eligibility will be assessed in line with the eligibility criteria in this policy. If the nearest school is undersubscribed with places available, then it will be the nearest suitable school for travel purposes, and free travel would not be provided to an alternative school that is further away’.
• ‘If the nearest school is fully subscribed without places available, then the Council will need to assess if the child could have secured a place had one been applied for. This will be done by comparing the child with the last child to be offered a place at the school and determining which of them would have higher priority. This will often be a straightforward matter of determining which child lives closest to the school’.
16. The Council operates a two stage appeal procedure: a stage one review by a senior officer and a stage two appeal heard by the Council’s school transport appeals committee (a small group of elected councillors). The policy states that the committee considers the policy guidelines but may recommend departure from those guidelines in exceptional cases.

Publication of the new home to school transport policy

17. The Council carried out consultation regarding the new policy in early 2024 including webinars and face to face events in March 2024. The Council agreed the policy at its executive meeting in July 2024.
18. In early September 2024, the Council sent an email to schools with a request that it be forwarded to parents of those due to start secondary school in September 2025 about the secondary school admission process. The email included one line which said ‘there have been some changes in eligibility to home to school transport, so if this is an important factor when choosing a school please go to: [weblink]. Here you can use the online tool to find your nearest school to your home address’.
19. The link went to the Council’s School Transport page which contained two separate links to the policy, one of which linked to the 2019 policy instead of the new policy. The Council corrected this error in March 2025. The Council’s school transport page also included a distance calculator which would list the nearest schools to home.
20. In September 2024 the Council also sent schools via its weekly email under the ‘information, updates and guidance’ section ‘a request that the information attached is made available to parents as part of secondary open evenings’. The attached information was a slide presentation which set out that the revised home to school travel policy was being implemented and ‘the main eligibility criteria for eligible pupils is for travel to their nearest suitable school with places available’.
21. The Council’s website for starting secondary school included a link to the September 2024 home to school transport policy. A line on the website page said, ‘we provide free school transport to the nearest school to your home if it is over the required walking distance’.
22. The application disclaimer also said, ‘Please note if you apply for and are allocated a school which is not your nearest suitable school with places available you will be responsible for getting your child to school’.

What happened

23. In the normal admissions round Mr X successfully applied for his child to attend the local catchment area school, school A, from September 2025. In May 2025 he received a letter advising him that Y did not qualify for free home to school transport as school A was not the nearest suitable school.
24. In June 2025 Mr X requested maps of the routes. Later that month he submitted a stage one appeal. He said school A was the catchment school. They lived in a rural area and the distances to the nearest schools were similar. There was no existing bus route to the nearest school so it would be economically unviable for the Council if Y attended there.
25. In mid July the Council provided Mr X with maps of the routes.
26. The Council responded at stage one in mid July but did not agree the appeal. It said the decision was made in line with the Council’s policy. It said the catchment school was not the nearest school and had an application been made Y would have got a place at the nearest school.
27. Mr X submitted a request to go to stage two of the appeals process in late July 2025. Mr X said two different policies were linked to the Council’s website which created confusion and uncertainty. The admissions policy for Y’s entry into school in September 2025 set out that ‘if parents name a school other than their catchment area school they will be responsible for transport under the terms of the home to school transport policy’. Mr X said there was no attempt to contact parents directly, and the schools were unaware of the change.
28. Mr X said the information sent to primary schools did not say for action but was marked for information and guidance. It did not target year six children in a direct way. Mr X said if they were properly informed, they may have made a different decision.
29. Mr X said the maps included a bridleway which was not a safe route for children to walk and included a private road which was not usable to the public. Mr X said Y had a Special Educational Needs (SEN) support plan which focused on the transition to secondary school. Mr X also said there were no paid seats available on the bus so there was no guaranteed way of Y getting to school. Mr X believed the Council had not met the current standard required by the guidance for clear communication.
30. The Council heard Mr X’s stage two appeal in early September 2025. The Council’s report to the committee explained the nearest school was 7.226 miles from Mr X’s home. The catchment school, school A, was 9.089 miles away. It said Y would have got a place at the nearest school if Mr X had applied for it. It said the changes were widely publicised. It acknowledged there was a link to the previous policy document on the website. However, it said the website content which listed the policy wording was correct.
31. At the hearing the Council’s representative explained how the distances were measured and that there was no expectation for a child to walk the route. It was purely a consistent way of measuring distance. It said the new policy was implemented in advance of the admissions round and the changes were widely publicised. There was also a nearest school checker available on its website. They said Y had received a paid permit on school transport.
32. Mr X advised the committee that Y had not received a paid permit as there was no space.
33. Mr X presented his case. He explained that the nearest school was in a neighbouring council’s area which had no existing ties to the primary school and there was no existing bus route. School A was the long-established catchment school, and the new policy would further isolate rural families. Mr X explained Y’s SEN and their difficulties with transitions. In their final year of school Y had additional transition days to school A which included going on the bus. School A was looking to put Y in a class with their peers to support this further. Given Y’s need for predictability they chose the catchment school as they were confident Y would get a place there.
34. Mr X also raised his concerns about communication of the policy and that the mapping provided went down a private road not accessible to the public.
35. Mr X’s representative gave a statement. They said they were disappointed the Council’s report to the committee made no reference to Y’s SEN which they considered was an exceptional reason to award transport. They said Y attended a small school and peers would be moving to school A.
36. The committee asked if Mr X had checked online given the necessity for consistent transport. Mr X said the significant changes were not highlighted to parents. Mr X also said that not getting school transport or a paid place on the bus meant they were unsure how Y would get to school. Y’s sibling had special educational needs and the current arrangements for getting them both to school would change significantly which would impact the mental health and well-being of both children.
37. The committee considered the policy was applied correctly. The committee’s notes of the members’ considerations included: Y was a vulnerable child who required extra transition days and a relationship build up with teachers. They noted the support plan but said there were no exceptional reasons to move away from the policy; one member had concerns with mapping errors and the safety of the route but said they would get transport to the nearest school; they noted there were two nearer schools in a neighbouring council’s area and the parents did not consider these at all. The committee did not uphold the appeal.
38. In his complaint to us Mr X also complained the committee had limited their representative’s right to speak at the meeting to the start and end of the meeting. Regarding the role of representatives at appeal hearings, in response to our enquiries on another case, the Council explained that those attending can bring someone to provide support through the appeals process. It said in some previous hearings the representative dominated proceedings and raised issues not relevant to the appeal, focusing on the Council’s development of the policy and its legality. To ensure appeals focused on the appellant and their grounds for appeal the chair requested supporters, once they had made their statement, directed any further points or questions through the appellant.

Findings

The change in policy

39. We expect councils to explain their policies clearly to enable parents to make informed decisions when applying for schools about whether their child might be eligible for school transport. The evidence shows the Council consulted widely on the new policy but there was fault in the way it was communicated. The Council’s website wrongly linked to the old policy which was fault.
40. The Council’s new policy is a significant change from its previous one. In particular, free transport is no longer automatically provided to catchment area schools over three miles away. The Council’s website referred to transport being provided to the nearest suitable school, but we would not expect parents to be experts in the subtlety of language used in Government guidance and what is meant by suitable school. A parent may wrongly assume the catchment school is the nearest suitable school. It is only within the transport policy itself that the Council states ‘the nearest qualifying school for school travel purposes may not be the catchment school used for admissions purposes’. The Council did not clearly spell out on its website or admissions form that transport would not automatically be provided to the catchment school if it was over three miles away.
41. Although the Council circulated information to all schools, this was in the ‘information, updates and guidance’ section and not in the ‘for action’ section of the email. It asked secondary schools to make parents aware there were policy changes but did not ask primary schools to highlight the changes to year 6 parents who would be applying for secondary school. The attached presentation slides emphasised free transport would be provided to the nearest suitable school but as set out above did not clearly set out that this was not necessarily the catchment school.
42. In his stage two appeal, Mr X also referenced the inaccuracy in the Council’s admissions policy for 2025/26. The Council agreed the admission arrangements for 2025/26 in January 2024, before the Council agreed the new home to school transport policy. The admissions policy, as published on the Council’s website stated at paragraph nine that ‘if the parents name a school other than their catchment area school, they will be responsible for transport under the terms of the home to school transport policy’. At the time the Council agreed the new admissions arrangements in January 2024, the transport policy had yet to change so this was not factually inaccurate. However, the Council failed to take action to highlight the change when the new home to transport was introduced in September 2024. This was fault and added to the confusion, given it is unlikely parents would have waited until the online application window opened in September 2024 to start considering the options for secondary schools for their children.
43. This poor communication is fault and meant Mr X could not make a fully informed decision about which secondary school to apply for.

Mr X’s appeal

44. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it 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, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision it made.
45. At the stage two appeal hearing, the committee made no comment on the points Mr X raised about communication of the new transport policy, the admissions policy referencing transport to catchment area schools and the communication sent through schools. There is no evidence the committee properly considered the impact on Mr X of how the new policy was communicated or that the website had a link to the old policy. This was fault which leaves Mr X with uncertainty over what decision the committee would have reached had it properly considered the information he provided about communication of the new policy. It is for the committee to decide what, if any, impact this fault may have had on Mr X’s original school admission application and subsequent school transport application.
46. Mr X also raised concerns about the way the distances were measured and that the route included a private road. There is no evidence the committee properly considered this and what if any impact this had on the home to school distances. This adds to the uncertainty over the decision made by the transport appeals committee.
47. Mr X was also unhappy the Council decided to limit the role of his representative and said they were not advised of this until the actual appeal. The Council has explained why, following earlier appeals, it restricted the ability of representatives to ask questions directly. Mr X has provided a statement from his representative refuting this. However, Mr X was allowed to attend with a representative, and the representative was able make a statement or could ask questions through Mr X. Although this may have been frustrating for Mr X this was a decision the Council was entitled to make and was not fault. It would have been good practice for the Council to have made Mr X aware of this in advance of the appeal. However, the records appear to show Mr X was able to put his case across and I have seen no evidence this caused Mr X a substantial disadvantage.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. Within two months of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. arrange a new second-stage appeal committee to consider Mr X’s appeal again. The panel should comprise of new members. It should ensure this properly considers all Mr X’s case including his concerns about the way the policy was communicated, the outdated information in the admissions policy and the accuracy of the maps regarding its use of a private road.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman