Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision not to provide Mrs X’s child, Z, with home to school transport. This is because Z did not meet the eligibility criteria for home to school transport and the Council used its discretionary powers to decide to provide a personal travel budget.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused her request to provide school transport for her child, Z, and that she is unable to use the personal transport budget it offered. She said this has led Z to miss some school, causing them distress and causing distress and frustration to her.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have considered matters from September 2025. I have referred to the previous stage two appeal from October 2024 but have not investigated its decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant legislation and policy

Arrangements for eligible children

8. Councils 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. A child will not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem, or on the grounds that the route is unsafe, if they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.
10. A child will not normally be eligible solely because their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities mean they are unable to accompany their child themselves. Councils must consider cases where the parent says there are good reasons why they are unable to accompany their child, or make other suitable arrangements for their journey, and make a decision based on the circumstances of each case.
11. Where the council 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)
12. If only one school is named in a young person’s EHC plan, then that is the school the council has determined is the nearest suitable school for the child. It is therefore the nearest ‘qualifying school’ for the child to attend for school transport consideration. This is because the council has not made arrangements for the child to attend a closer school. (S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 346.) Where the child is attending the ‘nearest suitable school’, they will qualify for free transport, provided any other relevant conditions are met.

Councils’ discretionary power

13. Councils have discretionary power to provide travel to school for children resident in their area who are not eligible. It is for each council to decide whether and how to exercise their discretionary power.
14. With parents’ consent, councils may pay all or part of a child’s reasonable travel expenses, provide them with a travel allowance, or arrange for them to be accompanied by a passenger assistant.
15. There is an expectation that councils will act reasonably in the performance of their functions. They should not have a blanket policy of never providing discretionary travel and should be prepared to consider cases where the parent says there are reasons why their child needs free travel to school and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023)

Transport appeals

16. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
17. 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)

The Council’s home to school travel policy

18. The Council’s policy for 2025 to 2026 says the eligibility for children with SEN, disability, mobility or medical condition, who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school, is assessed on an individual basis.
19. The Council reserves the right to charge towards the costs of any travel assistance provided under discretionary arrangements. Any assistance granted would relate to the circumstances of the child not the parent or carer.
20. Children and young people who have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, or attend a special school, do not automatically qualify for travel assistance.
21. The Council will not normally provide travel assistance through its policy in certain circumstances, including so that parents can take siblings to different schools or go to work at a specific time.
22. The Education Transport Appeals Sub-Committee considers stage two appeals. The committee considers case papers and the parents’ appeal. The committee considers all appeals on their individual merits.
23. The committee must take into consideration the cost of travel should an appeal be upheld. The views of the young person and parents will be considered, but the final decision on the type of travel assistance offered will be made by the Council.
24. The grounds under which the Education Travel Appeals Sub-Committee can allow / uphold an appeal are:
• The Travel Policy has not been applied properly
• There are discrepancies in the way the application has been handled
• The individual circumstances put forward by the applicant outweigh the normal policy considerations and are considered to be exceptional circumstances.

Background

25. Z has special educational needs and attends a special secondary school. Their EHC plan says:
• Z has some road safety awareness but will often not put it into practice.
• Z would be unable to navigate public transport independently.
26. Z lives with their parents, an older adult sibling and two younger siblings, Child M and Child Y. Child Y has special educational needs.
27. In October 2024 the Council’s stage two appeal panel used its discretion to provide school transport for Z. It said:
• Z does not meet the distance criteria.
• Z is not in receipt of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance.
• There is no evidence Z is unable to get to school if accompanied by an appropriate adult.
• The family’s exceptional circumstances outweighed normal policy considerations and it would allow the appeal in the form of a place on a minibus to school.

What happened

28. In February 2025 Mrs X applied for school transport for Z for the following school year. The Council refused the application as Z did not meet the eligibility criteria for home to school transport.
29. In May 2025 Mrs X made a stage one appeal to the Council. The Council decided to pause the appeal as it expected Child Y to be allocated an educational placement for September 2025.
30. By July 2025 Y did not have an allocated school place so the Council proceeded with the stage one appeal. The Council said it would not provide school transport because:
• Z lived within walking distance from school.
• The law assumes an adult will accompany a child to school.
• The SEN service works to make sure families support their own children and support should be the most inclusive and least specialist form of travel to ensure that travel supports a child’s wider outcomes.
31. Mrs X submitted a stage two appeal in July 2025 that was heard in September 2025. At the appeal the Council said:
• Z lived within the statutory walking distance from school.
• There was no evidence Z was in receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance.
• There was no evidence Z had extended rights from a low family income.
• There was no evidence from a consultant or professional demonstrating Z had difficulties travelling to school when accompanied.
32. It said it had considered all the individual circumstances including:
• Mr X was the only driver in the household and his work vehicle was the only one available. Mrs X does not drive.
• Child M attends school outside of the Council’s area. At the appeal the committee questioned whether M could attend a school close to their home. Mrs X explained they were settled at their current school and had already had to give up a lot due to the additional needs of their siblings.
• Without school transport Mr X had to take Z with him to take M to school and then take Z to school before going to work. He did the reverse journey in an afternoon before returning to work. This arrangement could result in Z being late for school and being collected early. It also required Mr X to have time away from work in an afternoon leading to him working late into the evening.
• Child Y required constant care. They could become severely dysregulated in unfamiliar situations and were not able to use public transport. They should have started nursery in September 2025 but had been unable to as there was no special nursery place available.
• Mrs X was reapplying for Disability Living Allowance for Z.
33. The committee concluded:
• It was the parents’ choice to send child M to a school out of the area and their logistical difficulties could be mitigated if all their children attended a school closer to their home.
• Child Y should be attending an educational setting by December 2025 which may allow greater flexibility in getting Z to school by allowing time when Mrs X was not their carer.
• The committee did consider the family’s circumstances to be exceptional and said it would allow the appeal in the form of a personal travel budget (PTB) of £513 for the year, to help with travel until Y had a place in an educational setting.
34. Mrs X said she was unable to use the PTB as it did not address the difficulty the family had in getting Z to school.
35. In September 2025 Z’s teacher wrote to Mrs X with concerns about Z’s transport to school causing them anxiety and them missing some learning. In September 2025 Z’s attendance at school was 65%.
36. In September 2025 Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. She said:
• The PTB was unsuitable for her family’s circumstances because it was not sufficient to pay towards a taxi, she cannot walk Z to school and cannot take them on public transport due to Y’s needs.
• The Council’s decision making was inconsistent as it had awarded transport the previous year under the same circumstances.
37. The Council advised Mrs X she had completed the appeals process and no further review could take place.
38. Since the stage two appeal, Y has started to attend a special school. As of April 2026, Mr X takes child Y to school after he has taken M and Z. Y has to go to school late as Mr X is unable to take them until he has taken the other children. Y receives a personal transport budget.

Findings

39. Mrs X made an application for home to school transport for Z. After turning down the initial application, the Council followed its policy and completed the appeals process.
40. Mrs X’s application was declined at stage one of the appeals process. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision.
41. Mrs X then made a stage two appeal request. At the appeal committee hearing both the Council and Mrs X presented their case.
42. Guidance says a child will not normally be eligible for home to school transport on the grounds of their SEN if they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied. I have seen no evidence Z would be unable to walk if they were accompanied.
43. Councils must consider cases where the parent says there are good reasons why they are unable to accompany their child, or make other suitable arrangements for their journey, and make a decision on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
44. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
45. The Council followed its processes and considered Z’s individual circumstances. It made the decision to uphold the appeal and to award a PTB. I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
46. It is for the Council to decide how to exercise its discretionary power and in this case the committee decided to award a PTB.
47. In the previous year the appeal committee upheld the appeal and awarded Z a place on school transport. This year the circumstances of the family had not changed but the appeal committee said it would provide Mrs X with a PTB.
48. The Council’s policy says it will review its decision at least annually and it was therefore entitled to make a new decision. As Z did not meet the eligibility criteria, it was for the appeals committee to decide whether the circumstances were exceptional enough to award transport and to decide what support to offer.
49. Mrs X did not agree to the personal travel budget and did not receive it as she said the budget did not make a difference in resolving the difficulties Z faced in getting to school. It is open to her to ask the Council to pay her the money if she wishes to do so.
50. It is also open to Mrs X to apply to the Council for home to school transport for Z for 2026-27.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman