Summary: We found fault on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to properly assess and decide her applications for her son to receive post-16 home to school travel support. It failed to properly make decisions, show how it reached them, and show how it considered her evidence. The Council agreed to send her an apology, make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused, remind relevant officers and panel members about proper decision making, and carry out a further assessment and decision on her application. The agreed actions remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council failing to properly assess and decide her application for her son to receive post-16 Special Education Needs and Disability Home to School Travel Support: as a result, she has the financial strain of funding his taxis to and from college. In addition, she has health problems, her son is missing education, all of which is causing her stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s Post-16 Transport Policy Statement (2025-2026)

6. Councils do not have to provide free or subsidised post 16 travel support. They do have a duty to prepare and publish an annual transport policy statement setting out the arrangements for the provision of transport or other support it considers necessary to facilitate the attendance of all persons of sixth form age receiving education or training.
7. Transport will not normally be provided for mainstream students or students without special educational needs or disabilities who were not eligible for free home to school travel when they were of compulsory school age (5-16 years).
8. For those with special educational needs or a disability aged 16-18, the minimum criteria (Minimum Criteria) to be eligible for travel support, an applicant must:

• be a Liverpool resident;
• attend a course at a school, further education college, or institution or 16-19 Academy of at least 450 guided learning hours a year;
• have an Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan), as travel support is only given where parents/carers have asked that a school be named in the EHC plan, which is not the nearest available educational setting to meet the pupil’s needs, when the Council considers this to be the most efficient use of resources;
• be aged 16-18 years or have started the relevant course before turning 19 and are continuing to attend it.

9. An application that meets the Minimum Criteria will then be considered according to further criteria (Further Criteria).
10. Applications not meeting the Minimum Criteria are only considered according to the Further Criteria in exceptional circumstances. The Council has discretion to decide when to provide travel support and all referrals are individually considered. The Further Criteria require the Council to consider:

• the needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practicable to attend a particular establishment to receive education or training if no arrangements were made;
• the need to ensure those in its area have a reasonable opportunity to choose between different establishments;
• its general duties to ensure enough suitable education and training is provided to meet the reasonable needs of 16–18-year-olds;
• distance and journey time from home, the cost of transport, and alternative means of facilitating attendance;
• the nature of the route or alternative routes they could reasonably take;
• the nature of the special educational needs, disability, or learning difficulty;
• anything set out in an EHC plan about transport requirements;
• whether there is a nearer institution which is suitable and can provide the same/similar qualification; and
• where a parent has asked for a school to be named in the EHC plan, that is not the nearest that can meet the needs, the Council will assess the costs of both provision and transport needs. If it is not considered to be the most efficient use of public resources, the nearest school will also be named in the EHC plan, and the parent/carer will be responsible for all transport costs.

Back to top

Home to School Travel Support Appeals Process (2025/2026)

11. A parent/carer has 20 working days from receiving the Council’s decision about home to school transport to submit an appeal asking for a review at Stage One. They can also ask for a review of a Stage One review within 20 days of the decision which goes to a Stage Two panel. Applicants are given the opportunity to attend the hearing virtually. The clerk to the panel sends the panel’s decision within 5 working days of the hearing.

What happened

12. Miss Y is a single parent with a health condition and two other children which means she cannot escort her son, Z, to school by bus.
13. At the end of August 2025, when Z was 16 years old, she applied for help with his travel to and from college. Z has health conditions but does not have an EHC plan. In the application, she set out his health problems, how he could not manage long or unfamiliar journeys on his own, the college being almost 7 miles away with several changes on public transport needed, and how he would need support. She wanted him to have transport assistance.
14. In September, the Council sent her its decision refusing her application (decision 1). The letter wrongly said he had an EHC plan and simply told her the application was declined after assessment against the policy criteria. It said she failed to give any medical reason to support it which meant it did not meet any criteria. This was sent by the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Travel Support Team. The Council also sent her appeal forms should she wish to challenge it. I have not seen any appeal she sent against this decision.
15. In October, the Council wrote to her with its decision following her further application for Home to School Travel Support (decision 2). This letter also wrongly said Z had an EHC plan, for which the Council later apologised. It explained her application was assessed under the policy and refused. It noted there was no medical reason given by her about why she made the application which meant it failed to meet the criteria under its policy. This was also sent by the SEN Travel Support Team.
16. The same day, she received a letter from the SEN Travel Appeal Panel which referred to the Stage One review (decision 3). I assume this was its response to her decision 1 appeal request. This referred to a letter from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, a GP letter, and parent risk summary. It noted there was no EHC plan. It concluded the criteria it quoted was not met. The letter explained the decision 2 letter was wrong to say Z had an EHC plan and confirmed the original reasoning for its decline was incorrect. It also went on to say as his college was not named in an EHC plan, and he had not received SEN travel support before, he was not eligible for Post 16 SEN Travel Support.
17. Three days later, Miss Y wrote to the Council wanting to go the Stage Two panel. She sent the council a parent risk summary, parent medical summary, and Z’s medical summary. Miss Y asked it to consider exceptional circumstances.
18. In November, the Council sent her its Stage Two panel decision (decision 4). The summary of the evidence it considered did not include the summaries Miss Y sent or the GP letter. The reason for the decision was her application did not meet the eligibility criteria. It explained the college was not the nearest school. The school was also not named in an EHC plan.
19. Miss Y wrote to the Council asking for it to arrange travel training for Z. The Council told her it had been withdrawn. She wrote again, asking for it to be reinstated. The Council signposted her to the college for travel training. This was because Z was not eligible for Post-16 transport help.
20. The Council explained in its response to our enquiries that its policy does not impose a restriction to helping only those who were assessed as having transport needs before reaching compulsory school leaving age. All post-16 learners seeking help need to send a new application and each is considered within the Minimum Criteria and Further Criteria. While the policy explains previous eligibility may be relevant information, eligibility is not determined solely by whether a learner received this support before they were 16.

Back to top

My findings

21. I found the following:
1. Fault on decision 1 because:

• it wrongly said Z had an EHC plan. I note the Council apologised for this error.
• it simply said her application had been assessed under the policy and declined. It said no medical reason was given in her application, which meant it failed to meet any criteria.
• while medical evidence might be one consideration it had to take into account, it was not the only one. None of the Further Criteria were referred to in the letter as having been considered. There was nothing to show how it considered her evidence received.
• it failed to explain Z had not met the Minimum Criteria because he had no EHC plan.
• it also failed to explain that because he did not meet the Minimum Criteria, it then had to consider the application under the Further Criteria.
• it failed to explain how it assessed the application under the Further Criteria.
2. Fault on decision 2 because:
• this letter was identical in content to decision 1 which means the fault identified with decision 1 applies to this decision too.
3. Fault on decision 3 because:
• while it correctly said Z did not meet the Minimum Criteria, as he did not have an EHC plan, there were failings with the Further Criteria stage.
• although it listed the Further Criteria, it concluded the appeal was refused because they were not met. It failed to explain why they were not met or how it had considered her evidence in relation to them. For example, there was nothing to show it considered, and explained, how it took account of: distance and journey time from Z’s home to the college; the cost of transport there; alternative means of facilitating attendance; the nature of the route, or alternative route Z could be reasonably be expected to take; the nature of his special educational needs, disability, or learning difficulty; his needs if no arrangements were made.
• it said decision 1 was wrong but as Z had not received SEN travel support before, and the college is not named in an EHC plan, he was not eligible for Post 16 SEN Travel support. I am not satisfied this is the correct test for assessing the application. The correct test was whether he qualified under the Minimum Criteria and then under the Further Criteria. Whether a child previously received SEN travel support before the age of 16 is not set out in the Further Criteria. This statement in the decision 3 letter contradicts what the Council said to us in its enquiry response letter.
• in its response to our enquiries, the Council also said the letters all mention the distance from home to college. This is correct. The decisions do show the mileage between home and college. What they all failed to do was to go on to explain the significance of it.
• there was no record showing how the decision was reached. As noted, there was nothing to show how Miss Y’s evidence was considered and weighed when considering the Further Criteria to decide whether there were exceptional circumstances.
4. Decision 4: I found fault with this decision letter because it merely said her appeal was refused because Z did not meet the eligibility criteria. The same failings that happened with the other decisions applied to it.
5. I am satisfied these failings caused Miss Y an injustice. This is because she has the distress of not knowing whether each one was properly decided. She lost the opportunity to have them properly considered at the time which caused her stress and frustration.

Back to top

Action

22. I considered our guidance on remedies.
23. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send a written apology to Miss Y for failing to: properly explain and record how her application and supporting evidence was assessed and decided against its post-16 Transport Policy Statement.
2. Pay £150 to Miss Y for the avoidable injustice the fault caused.
3. Remind all relevant officers and panel members making decisions on this type of application of the need to clearly show the decision, how it was reached, and what evidence was considered.
4. Carry out a further assessment and decision of her application and evidence showing how it considered her evidence and application against its policy statement.
5. If the Council makes a different decision and awards transport help, it will consider providing Miss Y with a financial remedy to acknowledge the period transport support was missed. If Miss Y and the Council cannot agree such a remedy, Miss Y can refer this back to the Ombudsman for a decision.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I found fault causing injustice on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman