Summary: The Council was at fault in that it did not properly consider Mr X’s application for free school transport for his eligible child, Y. The Council expected Mr X to accompany Y to school on Council-arranged transport, which is not consistent with the statutory guidance. The Council was also at fault in that it did not invite Mr X to attend the stage two appeal panel and gave him incorrect information about how to escalate his complaint. These faults caused Mr X avoidable frustration, confusion and uncertainty. To remedy his injustice, the Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £400. The Council was also at fault for expecting other parents of eligible children to accompany them on Council-arranged transport. The Council will apologise to those parents and offer to reconsider their school transport applications. The Council also agreed to actions to improve its services and prevent these faults happening again.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s child, Y, has special educational needs (SEN), has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and is eligible for free school transport. Mr X complained that, after the Council initially refused to arrange transport for Y on the grounds of distance, its decision to offer a personal travel budget did not meet the family’s needs. He said this meant that Y would not be able to attend school. Mr X wanted the Council to provide a transport solution that met his family’s transport needs and enabled Y to attend 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 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)
3. 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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

Travel arrangements for eligible children

9. 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); and
• 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. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

SEN Transport – reasonable expectations on accompaniment

10. 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.
11. 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 on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
12. 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)

Transport appeals

13. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
14. 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 the Ombudsman.

(Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

15. The statutory guidance is specific that the Council “should enable any parent that wishes to, to attend an appeal hearing, virtually or in person, to present their case. Where a parent does not wish or is unable to attend a hearing, the panel should make its decision based on the parent’s written representations”.

The Council’s policy

16. The Council maintains a policy entitled “Home to School Travel Policy for Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities” (the SEND Travel Policy). This includes:

“6 Accompaniment

6.1 The general expectation is that a child will be accompanied by a parent via walking, using bus, train or taxi arrangement via Direct Payments where necessary, unless there is an exceptional reason why it is not reasonable to expect the parent to do so (such as travel on SEND Transport of parent with disability).

7 Types of Assistance

7.1 Children with SEN and disabilities will ordinarily be expected to use the free transport available for children and young people including those with SEN and disabilities through the TfL [Transport for London] free transport.

7.2 Beyond that, assistance provided for eligible children by the local authority includes:

• travel training/travel buddy scheme
• provision of Passenger Assistant/Travel Buddy to enable an eligible child with a disability to walk to school in safety or travel on public transport
• provision of a pass (Direct Payment for TfL Oyster travel card) for a parent to take the child to school on a public transport
• a mileage allowance to the parent for driving their eligible child to school but only in lieu of the local authority making arrangements
• a direct payment for a parent to arrange for a suitable carer to take the child to school
• Direct Payment for taxi services to school (this is a financial contribution)”.

What happened

17. In May 2025, Mr X applied to the Council for school transport for Y, to begin when they started attending a special secondary school (named as the educational setting in their EHC Plan) in September 2025. At the time of Mr X’s application, the Council provided transport (a school bus for children with SEN and disabilities) for Y to attend primary school. The Council considered Y was an eligible child for free travel to school.
18. The Council’s travel assistance panel rejected Mr X’s application in late May, on the grounds that Y didn’t have health needs preventing them using public transport when accompanied, they were entitled to free bus travel (as all children in the Council area are), and they lived 1.6 miles from school (straight-line distance).
19. Mr X appealed this decision in mid-June, on the grounds that Y could not use public transport, even when accompanied. Y’s special needs meant that they would behave in ways that put themselves and others at danger. This was based on past experience. Mr X also said the shortest travel distance between the family home and the school was 2.6 miles.
20. In late June, a Council officer was present on Y’s school transport vehicle and witnessed Y behaving inappropriately. The Council had already taken mitigating action when Y had exhibited similar behaviour on a previous occasion. The Council ceased Y’s school transport at the end of June, because of the repeated behaviour. This matter is not the subject of Mr X’s complaint but is included here for context.
21. The Council responded at stage one of its appeal process in early July. It said the Council had decided to overturn its previous decision to decline travel assistance and would now offer a travel reimbursement payment for a taxi. It said this decision had been made in recognition of Y’s complex needs, which the Council acknowledged made it unsafe for them to travel on public transport. It said that Mr X “or a responsible adult will need to escort [Y] to and from school each day”.
22. The letter concluded that if Mr X was dissatisfied with the response, he could appeal at stage two, and that this appeal would “be considered by a senior officer of the Council.”
23. Mr X made a further appeal. He said the arrangement offered by the Council was not suitable. He said that Y became “highly [distressed] and can be extremely challenging to manage” when transported to school by any means other than in a school bus. He said he could not accompany Y in a taxi because he needed to be at work, and Y’s mother could not do it because she needed to be at a primary school, three miles away, to collect Y’s younger siblings at the end of the school day. He suggested two suitable options: for the Council to provide a carer who would support Y one to one a) on the school bus, or b) in a private taxi. He reiterated that, if that support was not available, Y would not be able to attend school.
24. Before the Council’s considered Mr X’s stage two appeal, Y’s mother wrote to the Council setting out further options that would be acceptable to the family. One would be for Y to be allowed back on the SEND school bus; another would be for the Council to fund a taxi for Y, accompanied by his mother and sisters. She explained that if the Council chose the latter option, it would need to fund additional taxis for her to return home in the morning and travel back to school in the afternoon, arrange for Y to stay late at school while their siblings were collected, and take account of the children’s school start and finish times.
25. The Council’s travel assistance panel considered Mr X’s stage two appeal in late August 2025. The Council did not invite Mr X to attend the panel meeting, and the Council told me, “Parents are not invited to attend Stage 2 Appeal panel meetings”.
26. Also in late August, the Council wrote to Mr X with the outcome of the appeal. It said it had decided to uphold its previous decision of a travel reimbursement payment for a taxi. It said it had considered Y’s needs, their previous behaviour to staff, and Y’s mother’s availability to take Y to school. It considered payment would cover two journeys for all children including siblings to and from school. It had determined Y could therefore use a taxi.
27. The Council increased the travel budget by £1.50 per taxi journey. It still agreed to fund only two journeys per day, not the four requested by Y’s mother.
28. The Council’s letter concluded that, if Mr X remained dissatisfied, he could submit a further appeal. It did not inform him of his right to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
29. Mr X complained further in early September, setting out why he believed the Council’s reasoning was faulty. This included that Y’s mother could not collect Y before her other children, as it would not be safe for her to then take Y to collect their siblings from their primary school.
30. The Council responded to Mr X, saying that there was no further internal appeal stage. Mr X approached the Ombudsman in late September.
31. Mr X re-applied for school transport for Y in February 2026. The Council carried out an at-home reassessment of Y’s needs, and, in March 2026, it offered Y a place on school-arranged transport.
32. In response to my enquiries, the Council identified two cases since May 2025 where it expected parents to accompany their eligible child while travelling on Council-arranged transport (bus or taxi).

My findings

33. 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, regardless of whether the person complaining disagrees with the decision the organisation made. And so, my findings below focus on the steps the Council took to consider Mr X’s application and appeal at each stage of its process.

The Council’s initial decision

34. At the time that the Council made its initial decision to decline Mr X’s application in late May 2025, it already provided free SEN specific school transport for Y to their primary school because it had decided they were an eligible child. It had also issued an EHC Plan for Y that included information about their special needs. And so, on the balance of probabilities, I find the Council was at fault in that it did not consider Y’s SEN as set out in their EHC plan when deciding they could use public transport to and from school. This is fault.
35. The statutory guidance on accompaniment, referred to at paragraphs 10 to 12, relates only to accompanying children who can walk to school – it does not cover accompaniment via any other mode of transport. And so, the Council was at fault in deciding Y could access public transport to and from school “when accompanied by a parent or responsible adult”.
36. It follows that the Council’s SEND Travel Policy is also at fault in that it includes a “general expectation” that “a child will be accompanied by a parent via walking, using bus, train or taxi arrangement via Direct Payments where necessary”. This expectation is not in accordance with the statutory guidance. Whilst Councils can make such arrangements with families if they agree to it, they cannot expect it of them, nor withhold school transport in the absence of their agreement.
37. The Council’s faults caused Mr X uncertainty about what the Council would have decided had it considered his May 2025 application properly, and frustration in that he felt forced to appeal the Council’s decision. I shall make recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and his family by the Council’s fault, and to improve the Council’s services.

The stage one appeal

38. The Council overturned its faulty decision following Mr X’s stage one appeal, as it recognised it would be unsafe for Y to travel on public transport. However, the Council still stated that Mr X “or a responsible adult will need to escort [Y] to and from school each day”, which was fault as set out above.
39. The appeal response concluded that, if Mr X was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one appeal, he could appeal at stage two, and that this appeal would “be considered by a senior officer of the Council.” This was fault, in that the statutory guidance includes that the stage two appeal should be considered by an independent panel. In the event, Mr X’s second appeal was considered by a panel, but the Council’s fault caused him uncertainty about whether the Council would consider his appeal properly.

The stage two appeal

40. The Council has a two-stage appeal process with a senior officer as the decision maker for stage one and an independent appeal panel for stage two. At both stages the Council requires written information from parents and officers involved in the case. The Council’s SEND Travel Policy states, “An independent appeal panel considers written representations from both the parent and officers involved in the case”. It does not allow parents the opportunity to attend the hearing and make verbal representations, and the Council told me parents are not invited to attend stage two appeal panel meetings.
41. The Council’s process does not meet the requirements set out in the statutory guidance which says councils should allow parents to attend to present their case or send their views in writing. This is important for transparency, natural justice and the opportunity for all parties to ask questions.
42. The Council failed to give Mr X the opportunity to attend, and speak to, the panel. This was fault. I consider if the Council had given Mr X this opportunity, it would have allowed the Council to make a more informed and robust decision. I cannot say what the outcome would have been if there had been proper consideration. As the Council has since made a new decision in Y’s case, I cannot recommend it should arrange for a properly constituted panel to consider Mr X’s appeal. Instead, I will recommend a remedy for the uncertainty caused to Mr X by the Council’s fault. I will also recommend changes to the Council’s SEND Travel Policy.
43. The stage two appeal response letter concluded that, if Mr X remained dissatisfied, he could submit a further appeal. It did not inform him of his right to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman. This was fault: the Council does not (and in accordance with the statutory guidance, should not) operate a third appeal stage. When Mr X submitted a further appeal, the Council corrected its fault by referring Mr X to the Ombudsman. However, it had caused Mr X uncertainty and confusion in the meantime and delayed his right to approach the Ombudsman.

Fault affecting others

44. The Council was also at fault for expecting two other parents to accompany their eligible child while travelling on Council-arranged transport (bus or taxi). I have made recommendations below to address the injustice experienced by those two families.

Back to top

Action

45. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 s 31(2B)). I have set out below the actions the Council should take to remedy the injustice to Miss X and those people who are also caused an injustice by the Council’s fault.
46. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty, frustration and confusion caused by its faults, and for delaying his right to approach the Ombudsman. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mr X £400 in recognition of the injustice caused to him and his family.
47. Also within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following actions:
1. Apologise to the two parents it has expected to accompany their eligible child while travelling on Council-arranged transport (bus or taxi). The apologies should meet the standards set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
2. Offer to reconsider those parents’ school transport applications in accordance with the statutory guidance.
48. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
1. Amend its SEND Travel Policy so that it accords with the statutory guidance relating to:
1. The accompaniment of eligible children; and
2. The right for parents to attend, virtually or in person, and present their case to the stage two appeal panel.
2. Amend its letter templates so that:
1. The stage one appeal response letter correctly explains that the next appeal stage is consideration by an independent panel (not by a senior officer of the Council); and
2. The stage two appeal response letter correctly explains that the next stage is escalation to the Ombudsman (not a third internal appeal stage).
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. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman