Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application for post-16 transport and in how it applied its own policy to consider whether the expectation placed on parents to facilitate transport was ‘reasonably practical’. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr X’s time and trouble, to take the decision again, and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his application for post-16 home to school transport for his daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether the Council should provide support with transport under a Council's policy; that is the Council's responsibility. We investigate the processes a council followed in its consideration of an application or appeal, to assess whether it made its decision properly. If we find fault in the process, we may ask the Council to take the decision again.
4. Councils should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
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.
7.  We have considered relevant law and guidance including the following caselaw:
• R (S) v Education (Waltham Forest) and the London Borough of Waltham Forest [2006] EWHC 3144
• Staffordshire County Council v JM [2016] UKUT 246 (AAC)
• R (on the application of Drexler) v Leicestershire County Council [2020] EWCA Civ 502
• TYC (by his mother and litigation friend KVD) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWHC 623.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
9. 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

What I found

Relevant law and guidance - post-16 school transport

10. Sections 509AA – 509AC of the Education Act 1996 (‘The Act’) set out what a council must consider when setting its policy for school transport for those of sixth-form age.
11. Councils should also have regard to the relevant statutory guidance ‘Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training’, dated January 2019. This says the Council must publish a transport policy statement which sets out:
• the transport arrangements it considers necessary to make, to facilitate attendance at education or training for learners of sixth form age;
• the financial help available for learners of sixth form age with transport costs;
• details of transport arrangements for people of sixth form age with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND); and
• a procedure for appeals or complaints about the Council’s post-16 school transport decisions.
12. The guidance also says councils:
• are expected to target support for post-16 transport at those who need it most;
• must have regard to the need for young people to have reasonable opportunities to choose between learning establishments and courses;
• must have regard to the distance and journey time of the place of learning from home;
• must have regard to the cost of transport to the learning establishment and of any alternative means of facilitating attendance; and
• can ask a family to contribute to transport costs but should ensure any contribution is affordable and have arrangements to support low-income families.
13. The Act and guidance are silent on the issue of parents needing to accompany post-16 students to and from their setting. Caselaw (R (on the application of S) v Edu Action (Waltham Forest) [2006] EWHC 3144 (Admin) states that given the different legal duties on councils for pre and post-16 pupils, parents should not be encouraged to believe they should do nothing to help get their children to school, on the basis if they do not the council will have to, but: “There is no absolute rule that the parents of children over 16 who cannot travel to school on their own are expected to take them. What parents can be expected to do will depend on their circumstances. There will be cases where it is not reasonable to expect them to drive a child to school. Each case will turn on its facts.”
14. The Court in this case set out relevant considerations councils should consider, including the effect of having to drive the pupil to school on the parent, the pupil, and the cost. The Court said decisions about the type of transport support required a ‘careful and sensitive assessment, based so far as possible on reliable information or evidence’. The Court noted these factors were ‘not necessarily exhaustive’ and it will be for councils ‘to consider any matter which is put before them or which they consider relevant in making the assessment required’. The Court recognised the need for exceptions and that for some students the only appropriate way to facilitate attendance would be expensive Council-arranged transport.
15. In TYC (by his mother and litigation friend KVD) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWHC 623, KVD said a personal travel allowance (PTA) was not a suitable post-16 transport offer. The Court found it was irrational the Council had not considered KVD’s evidence that she would have to give up work to facilitate her child’s attendance. The Court said councils “should not have a blanket policy of never providing discretionary travel and must properly consider and engage with the reasons given by a parent as to why they consider that their child's particular circumstances are exceptional and justify an award of travel support to school”.
16. In a post-19 case, Staffordshire County Council v JM (SEN): [2016] UKUT 246 (AAC), the Courts said while Councils have discretion as to when it is necessary to provide support: “This is not a pure discretion. Although the question of what is necessary is a matter for them, in deciding that question they must exercise their judgment judiciously and in good faith. If they come to the conclusion that it is necessary, they must make the necessary arrangements”.

Council’s policy

17. The Council issues a travel policy statement which sets out the support it will provide to facilitate the attendance of post-16 pupils at their education settings. A student will be eligible if they are aged 16 to 25 with a recognised learning difficulty or disability and:
• Have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and attend the setting named in the Plan; and
• They live more than three miles from the setting measured by walking route, and
• They attend the setting for at least twelve hours of guided learning each week of the academic year.
18. The policy says anyone who does not meet the above criteria should refer to the exceptional circumstances criteria detailed in the policy.
19. Those who meet the above criteria in paragraph 17 are ‘eligible’ for assistance made available on the following basis, depending on eligibility and the level of transport need:
• a free public transport pass (or equivalent cost) for a young person who is able to travel independently or could make the journey to their learning setting on public transport, accompanied by an adult as necessary;
• Independent Travel Training (ITT) for a young person who has the potential to travel independently, with an award of a free public transport pass on completion (or equivalent cost).
• A yearly flat-rate Personal Travel Allowance (PTA) based on distance from home to their nearest qualifying school or college able to accommodate the young person’s needs, to enable them to make their own travel arrangements, as follows: Between 3 and 10 miles, £1,000 per year - Between 10.01 and 20 miles, £2,000 per year - Over 20.01 miles, £3,000 per year.
• The consideration of transport assistance for applications made against the exceptional circumstance criteria.
20. The exceptional circumstances criteria say applications are considered on a case-by-case basis. Under this policy, the usual offer for post-16 and post-19 students unable to travel on public transport, or unable to travel independently through Independent Travel Training (ITT), would be the award of a PTA. This would also be the case for young people who fall outside of the main eligibility criteria, but who do meet the exceptional circumstances criteria set out below:
• Due to the complexity of a young person’s medical needs and/or special educational needs and disability (SEND);
• Because it is assessed by the council to be the most efficient use of council resources;
• Where it is considered by the council to be in the best interests of the young person (for example, where there is a safeguarding risk, or it is not reasonably practicable to access education if no arrangements were made);
• Particular circumstances around the availability/logistics of independent travel options

21. Council-organised transport (for example, a taxi or minibus) would also be considered for all young people eligible for assistance and who also meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.
22. The policy also gives the council discretion to award or provide any other offer of assistance as it felt appropriate in individual’s circumstances.

What happened

23. Mr X’s child, whom I shall refer to as Y, attends a special school seven miles from their home. Y received Council arranged transport for several years prior to post-16 education.
24. In February 2025, Mr X completed an application form for post-16 transport for September 2025. Mr X set out that Y has an EHC Plan, has multiple disabilities and cannot travel independently or use public transport.
25. Mr X stated he did not have a car at that time and he had two other children who needed to get to a different setting and the timings conflicted with getting Y to school given the distance.
26. The Council’s notes of its decision were: the journey was 7.6 miles; the journey time was 1 hour 13 minutes involving two buses; and the pupil had an EHC Plan naming the setting. A box was ticked that an award was approved. There are then boxes for the officer to choose a mode of support (ITT, taxi/minibus, passenger assistant, parental contribution or other). The decision maker has ticked ‘other’ and entered ‘PTA Band 1’.
27. This implies Y was eligible under the main policy as no reference to considering exceptional circumstances is made, and the form does not include a section or box for exceptional circumstances.
28. The decision letter states Y qualified for discretionary support, transport needs had been assessed, and Y’s requirements were for a PTA at Band 1 based on 3-10 miles distance. It does not say what the outcome of the assessment of Y’s needs were in terms of mode of travel.
29. Mr X objected to the decision stating Y could not travel on public transportation and there were no direct buses in any event. They would need to travel into a nearby city and then take a train to near the school and then walk the remaining distance, which was difficult due to Y’s disability. Mr X said £1000 would not cover the transport costs. Mr X also said he would have to stop his job to transport Y and that Y’s siblings had to travel to their setting with parent support at the same time which was incompatible with accompanying Y. Currently with council-arranged transport Y left home at 7.40 and returned at 4.20 which allowed all three children to get to and from school / nursery.
30. The Council reviewed the decision at stage one. The reviewer noted Mr X’s reasons included:
• Y’s disabilities and how this impacted independent travel;
• Y’s vulnerability on public transport unassisted;
• Current working hours and responsibilities to siblings made assisting Y with transport ‘challenging’.
31. The reviewer sympathised with concerns about Y’s ability to travel independently, that the £1000 ‘contribution’ would not cover the cost of a daily taxi, and organising the three children would be difficult. However, the reviewer went on to say they ‘could find no reason as to why it would be appropriate to overturn the original decision’ because Y had been assessed as able to travel accompanied as necessary by a responsible adult. The reviewer said there was no expectation Y walk to school, it was for parents to determine what arrangements would be suitable.
32. Mr X appealed to stage two. Mr X repeated his previous arguments including the conflict with his work and other children’s needs. Mr X said he could not drive Y daily nor afford to hire someone to do this task.
33. A stage two appeal panel was held.
34. The Council’s case at appeal stated that when the application was originally assessed Y’s SEND as described in the form, and EHC Plan, were not felt to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and therefore a PTA towards parents making suitable arrangements was agreed as appropriate. This was upheld at review. The officer also set out Mr X’s representations for the panel.
35. The clerk’s notes of the panel hearing record:
• Mr X explained Y was upset and anxious about changed arrangements, does not accept change to routine, and the loss of minibus transport had affected their mental health.
• Interim door to door transport had continued due to delay in the appeal being heard.
• A panel member said Mr X had ‘problem solved using taxis and public transport’. Mr X said they had tried this but with no direct route it took 1.5 hours. A taxi would cost £15 each way (at that time).
• A grandparent had supported with transport by car when the current minibus was late, but Mr X said this could not be relied on as the grandparent did not live close by.
• Mr X said his own medical conditions were aggravated by travelling.
• Mr X said his other children needed transporting with parental support at the same time. He said it was not appropriate for Y’s siblings to wait at school for 25 minutes for pick up.
• The panel asked if there was anything else Mr X could do to get his children to school. Mr X said they did not all start education at the same time, so the morning was possible, but the afternoon was impossible.
36. The panel’s deliberations were recorded as follows:
• Y required travel to school in some capacity.
• That Y was comfortable with prior arrangements was not exceptional on its own, Y would need to change routine as part of growing up.
• Alternatives did not seem to have been fully attempted yet as Y had been on interim transport.
• Y’s mother did not explain her role in helping with travel although she was on the call.
• The ‘assumption’ was parents will be able to support with arrangements with the support of PTA.
• No exceptional circumstances were noted.
• The wider family network could support, and travel could be done differently.
37. The decision letter stated ‘all details were carefully considered, with particular attention to the following’:
• Y’s particular disabilities;
• No family car, work commitments, two siblings and conflicting school schedules making it difficult to accompany Y to post-16 setting;
• No direct public transport, multiple changes and walking which is unsafe;
• Financial burden of using taxi.
38. The decision said the panel had found no basis to overturn the decision for a PTA at Band 1 as Y’s circumstances were not exceptional. The panel believed Y would adjust to new arrangements and, while there were family challenges, they were a two parent family, extended family had previously supported travel, and alternative options were available.
39. Mr X told me the transport was withdrawn in December and since then Y is either not attending school or having to leave school early as this is the only way all three children can attend education. He has had to borrow money to buy a car and had to stop work to facilitate transport.

Analysis

40. The Council decided Y was eligible for transport support under its main policy. The Council had discretion what type of support to offer to eligible students but must exercise this discretion in line with the case law set out above.
41. The courts have said councils can consider their resources, offer PTA’s, and expect parents to explore all methods of getting to education other than the Council providing a vehicle. However, the courts have also said that in some cases of ‘real need', where it would not be reasonable to expect the parents to transport the student themselves with a PTA, or where there are exceptional circumstances, more expensive support such as a council-arranged vehicle may be the only option to facilitate attendance.
42. The Council’s policy is in line with this view as it says the Council will provide a vehicle in ‘exceptional circumstances’, which includes when it not reasonably practicable to access education any other way. The policy says it will take into account the availability/logistics of independent travel options in each case.
43. For sixth form students, a PTA does not need to cover the full cost of transport. Councils can ask families to make a financial contribution, but this must be affordable. We expect councils to show they have considered cost and affordability when families are expected to make travel arrangements for pupils themselves.
44. I am not satisfied the Council and panel have followed its policy in considering whether it is reasonably practicable for Y to access education via other ways than a council-arranged vehicle. It is not clear from the Council’s records whether Y was expected to travel by car or public transport, whether the Council considered public transport safe for Y, who was expected to take her, whether there was a family car, what the impact was on Mr X’s work, what the logistics of the arrangements for Y and Y’s siblings were, or whether the residual cost to the family of making their own arrangements was affordable. All of this should be clear from the decision records but is not.
45. The Council and panel have acknowledged the difficulties the family faces, but commenting on them is not the same as ‘engaging’ with the reasons put forward and showing how these have been considered in reaching the decision made. If Mr X would have to give up work, or Y miss part of her education provision to facilitate other children’s attendance, why did the Council consider this reasonable? The rationale should be clearly set out.
46. An assumption is made by the panel about Y’s mother being able to support, but there should be no need to make assumptions as the purpose of the stage two panel hearing was to take oral evidence, so the Council could satisfy itself of the arrangements, logistics and costs involved, and that its expectations of parents were reasonable.
47. All these unanswered questions indicate a lack of thoroughness in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s representations and cast doubt on the decision reached.
48. The Council should retake its decision with reference to the correct law, policy and properly engaging with the individual circumstances. This does not necessarily mean the Council will make a different decision, but Ms X is entitled to a clear decision with reasons showing how the Council has applied the correct law, guidance and its own policy to his family’s circumstances.
49. Mr X says that Y has missed out on an hour’s education per day since transport was withdrawn in December. Y has an EHC Plan, and the Council has a legal duty to secure her fulltime education and all the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan. There is a question whether this has happened given Y is missing education daily.

Back to top

Agreed Action

50. Within one month of our final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the faults we have identified and the impact of those faults. 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 its apology.
51. Within one month of our final decision the Council will pay Mr X £200 for the time and trouble incurred in the unsatisfactory application and appeal process to recognise the avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
52. Within one month of our final decision the Council will:
• reconsider Mr X's application afresh, with no involvement from staff/ panel members involved previously;
• properly consider all evidence and representations from Mr X, have due regard to the law, statutory guidance and its own policy for sixth form pupils, any medical evidence or individual assessment, and properly record and explain the reasons for its decision addressing the specific representations Mr X has made;
• provide appeal rights in the usual way if Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision.
53. If the Council makes a different decision and awards council-arranged transport, it should consider providing Mr X / Y with a financial remedy to acknowledge the period arranged transport has been missed. If Mr X and the Council cannot agree a remedy, Mr X can refer this back to the Ombudsman for a decision.
54. Within two months of our final decision the Council should consider if it needs to provide decision makers with updated guidance or training to ensure they are considering applications on a case-by-case basis, exercising discretion to issue council organised transport where appropriate criteria is met, engaging with individual circumstances raised, and recording its reasons correctly. The Council should share details of the action it decides is required with the Ombudsman.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman