Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her son, Y with transport support so that he could get to college. We found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process and do not uphold this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her transport appeal to assist her son, Y, in getting to further education college and its refusal to help.
2. Mrs X says this has caused her and Y significant distress and frustration. She says this has also affected the family’s quality of life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. My investigation begins when Mrs X made her application for transport assistance in July 2025.
6. My investigation ends when Mrs X was signposted to us in September 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also considered information the Council provided in response to our enquiries.
8. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Post-19 education transport legislation

9. Section 508F of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to make transport arrangements they consider “necessary” to facilitate the attendance of relevant young adults at institutions where the local authority has secured the provision of education for the adult concerned. Relevant young adult means an adult who is under 25 years old (not a child or a pupil of sixth form age) for whom an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan is maintained. An EHC Plan is for children and young people between 0 and 25 years old in education, who have additional needs.
10. When a council finds it is “necessary” to arrange transport for the young adult under section 508F, then the transport must be arranged and be free of charge (Education Act 1996, section 508F(4)). In deciding whether the council is required to make arrangements because it is “necessary”, the council must have regard to (among other things) the age of the adult and the nature of the route which the adult could reasonably be expected to take.
11. If a council decides it is not “necessary” to arrange transport to facilitate the attendance of the relevant young adult, it still has the power to pay all or part of reasonable travel expenses with a discretionary award. (Education Act 1996, section 508F(8))
12. Councils must also take into account the “Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training statutory guidance 2019” (the statutory guidance).
13. There is no requirement for councils to provide free or subsidised post-16 travel support. The law imposes a duty to publish a transport policy statement setting out the transport arrangements they consider it necessary to facilitate attendance at education or training. The policy must include transport arrangements for young people of sixth form age and those between 19 and 25 with SEND.

Education transport appeal process

14. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who want to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:
15. Stage one: review by a senior officer; and
16. Stage two: 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 complaining to us.

The Council’s policy

17. The Council has a detailed post-16 transport policy statement (the policy) which includes arrangements for those who are between 19 and 25 and have an EHC Plan. It also explains there is a government discretionary bursary scheme which includes those 19 and over who have an EHC Plan which schools and colleges are responsible for managing.
18. The policy states that when deciding whether it is necessary for the Council to make transport arrangements for a young adult learner (19-25), the Council will have regard for:
• the learner’s age, ability and aptitude;
• any special educational needs they may have;
• the locations and times at which the education is being provided.
19. The policy also specifically states that:
• when deciding whether to make transport arrangements, the Council would not consider it necessary to do so when a young adult learner has already attended and completed a further education course at the same or equivalent level;
• it would expect to see the learner making progression; but
• each case will be considered on its own merits.

What happened

20. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

Background and context

21. Mrs X has a son, Y. Y has had an EHC Plan for a number of years. Y has various diagnoses. Mrs X says some of these make it impossible for him to travel using public transport. Y’s EHC Plan issued in March 2025 named a ‘further education college’ as his education setting.
22. Y was 17 years old when he started attending a further education college, College A, in September 2023. Y was going to be studying a qualification which was Level 3.
23. Mrs X applied for post-16 transport. The Council paid for taxi transport from home to College A in the academic year 2023-24. When Mrs X reapplied for the transport for the academic year 2024-25, the Council again agreed.

2025

24. In readiness for the academic year 2025-26, Mrs X again applied for transport support for Y to get to College A. By now, Y was 19 years old. Y had finished his first Level 3 qualification and was due to begin a different type of Level 3 qualification in September of 2025. The Council considered Mrs X’s application and declined to pay for further transport.
25. In July, Mrs X asked for a review of the decision. The officer review at stage one of the Council’s process again declined to pay for transport for Y.
26. Mrs X emailed the Council on 28 July and asked to appeal the review decision. Mrs X was unhappy because Y had been refused on the grounds he had not progressed as he was finishing one Level 3 qualification and beginning another. She explained that Y had wanted to study two types of Level 3 qualification at the same time when he started College A in September 2023. Mrs X said the college had not been able to offer both of the courses at the same time so Y then needed to attend for four years rather than two.
27. The Council held the stage two appeal hearing late in August.
28. The Council shared the appeal panel’s decision on 2 September and again declined to pay for transport to College A. The letter:
• explained the Council’s rationale and cited the ‘young adult learners, aged 19-25’ section of its post-16 transport policy;
• said the Council would not consider it necessary other than in exceptional circumstances for a learner to attend a course at an establishment where they had previously attended a course at the same level;
• listed the elements the panel had considered, which included the family’s individual circumstances and difficulties around transport to College A; and
• said panel members were satisfied the policy had been correctly applied.
29. The Council ended its decision letter by signposting Mrs X to us.

After the period of my investigation

30. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council about the same matters. The Council sent its stage one response on 5 November and largely repeated the panel’s decision letter sent in August. It again signposted her to us.

2026

31. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. The Council sent her a final response in January 2026. It largely repeated previous responses and again signposted Mrs X to us.
32. Mrs X explained to me that Y is attending College A with financial support from it to get taxis there and back.

Analysis

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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. It is for the Council to decide Mrs X’s application and appeal for post-19 transport for Y.
34. Evidence shows the Council held the appeal within the scope of its policy, with a presenting officer, panel members with a chairperson, a clerk to record events and the appellant all in attendance. Mrs X and the presenting officer both put their cases forward and the panel then discussed the merits of the appeal.
35. Evidence shows the panel was fully aware of Mrs X’s case, the family background, Y’s background and special educational needs, that he has an EHC Plan, and of the difficulties Mrs X said the lack of transport would cause both her and Y.
36. I have viewed the written notes of the panel’s deliberations. These are clear in noting the panel’s discussions about Y moving from one Level 3 course to a different Level 3 course which they agreed was evidence of a lack of progression. The panel was already aware of Mrs X’s explanation as to why this was taking place. On the basis of no progression, the Council made the decision, in line with its policy, that it would not be ‘necessary’ to arrange transport.
37. The minutes of the panel meeting also show that it considered whether it should exercise discretion to award transport support to Y. Having considered the circumstances presented, the panel believed they were not strong enough to make an exception to provide transport support.
38. Whilst I note Mrs X’s deep unhappiness at the Council’s decision, I am satisfied there is no procedural fault in how the Council held the appeal and justified its decision. I am satisfied it demonstrated it appropriately considered the circumstances involved and did so within the relevant guidance and its own policy.
39. Not awarding transport support to Y was a decision for the Council to make. It considered whether to exercise discretion but decided not to do so. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault. I find no fault in the Council’s actions here.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions and do not uphold this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman