Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing free school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his child’s Special Education Needs (SEN), medical needs and the impact medication has on her mobility when refusing free school transport. Mr X says his child is out of education which has caused upset and stress. Mr X wants transport to be reconsidered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 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)
7. 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.
8. 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)
9. Mr X asked the Council to provide free school transport for his child, which he says his child is entitled to. The Council refused the request on the grounds that the child lives within the legal walking distance of three miles and can walk to school accompanied if necessary.
10. Mr X used his right to appeal to a Council panel against the Council’s decision. He argued the Council should provide school transport because of his child’s SEN needs, her medical needs and the impact medication has on her mobility.
11. The appeal panel considered the Council’s policies, the child’s Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) and the information, evidence and arguments from Mr X which included letters from health professionals. It decided there were no exceptional grounds to warrant departing from the Council’s existing policy and the eligibility criteria for free transport. It supported the Council’s decision that the child was not entitled to free transport and could reasonably be expected to walk to and from school, accompanied if necessary.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether the transport arrangements are appropriate for Mr X’s child. That was for the Council to decide. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that affected the outcome. There is no such evidence here.

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman