Summary: There was fault in the way the Council publicised its new home to school transport policy, but this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. There was no evidence of fault in the way the appeals committee considered Mr X’s appeal against the decision not to provide free home to school transport.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide his child Y with free transport to their catchment secondary school following a change in the Council’s home to school transport policy. Mr X complained the Council provided misleading information about the policy change, which included a link to the Council’s old transport policy and the committee failed to properly consider this and the family’s exceptional circumstances. Mr X also complained the Council changed its policy on representation at the stage two committee hearing and there were mapping errors. Mr X said this caused him frustration and uncertainty and left Y without school transport.

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 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)
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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. 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’ includes children living outside the ‘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 who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe.
9. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
10. 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: review by independent appeal panel. Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request to escalate to stage 2, an independent appeal panel considers written and verbal representations. Within five working days following this, 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 us. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

11. The statutory code of guidance sets out that:
• The statutory walking distances are used to determine whether a child is eligible for free travel to school. This is not necessarily the shortest distance by road. The route may include footpaths, bridleways, other pathways and alternative entrances to the school.
• Where the schools are beyond walking distance, councils may consider it more appropriate to measure the shortest road route or the straight line distance. It should be made clear in the council’s school travel policy how the route will be measured.
• It should be clear to parents how they can find out which is their nearest school for admissions purposes and which is the nearest for school free transport purposes.
• Councils must publish their travel policy on their website and include information about their school travel policy in their composite prospectus for school admissions.
12. The guidance says an effective school travel policy will:
• Be easy for parents to find on the council’s website;
• Be clearly written so that parents may easily understand it;
• Enable parents to understand the circumstances in which a child is eligible for free travel to school;
• Tell parents how and when they should apply for free travel to school; and
• Tell parents how they may appeal against the council’s decision in relation to travel to school for their child.

The Council’s home to school travel policy

13. The Council operates catchment areas for admission to some of the schools in its area. This means those living in a certain geographical area get priority if a school is oversubscribed. Until 2024 the Council provided school transport to the catchment area school or nearest school for those living over three miles away.
14. In September 2024 the Council implemented a new Home To School Travel Policy. Under the new policy the Council only provides free transport to new applicants attending the nearest qualifying school to home. This meant certain towns and villages no longer qualified for transport to a catchment school and the nearest qualifying school may be in another council’s area.
15. The policy explained the nearest suitable school for school travel purposes may not be the catchment school used for admissions purposes. It said:
• ‘When deciding on eligibility for assistance with transport, the measurement from home to school will be taken from the fixed point within the property to the nearest entrance point (not always the main entrance) to the school following the nearest available walked route, as defined by the Council’s Geographical Information System (GIS)’.
• ‘The distance is not the shortest distance by road and the route may include footpaths, public rights of way, bridleways and other pathways identified on the GIS’.
• ‘Parents have the right to preference any school of their choice when applying for a school place, they do not however have a right to free-of-charge travel arrangements to that school. Travel eligibility will be assessed in line with the eligibility criteria in this policy. If the nearest school is undersubscribed with places available, then it will be the nearest suitable school for travel purposes, and free travel would not be provided to an alternative school that is further away’.
• ‘If the nearest school is fully subscribed without places available, then the Council will need to assess if the child could have secured a place had one been applied for. This will be done by comparing the child with the last child to be offered a place at the school and determining which of them would have higher priority. This will often be a straightforward matter of determining which child lives closest to the school’.
16. The Council operates a two stage appeal procedure: a stage one review by a senior officer and a stage two appeal heard by the Council’s school transport appeals committee (a small group of elected councillors). The policy states that the committee considers the policy guidelines but may recommend departure from those guidelines in exceptional cases.

Publication of the new home to school transport policy

17. The Council carried out consultation regarding the new policy in early 2024 including webinars and face to face events in March 2024. The Council agreed the policy at its executive meeting in July 2024.
18. In early September 2024, the Council sent an email to schools with a request that it be forwarded to parents of those due to start secondary school in September 2025 about the secondary school admission process. The email included one line which said ‘there have been some changes in eligibility to home to school transport, so if this is an important factor when choosing a school please go to: [weblink]. Here you can use the online tool to find your nearest school to your home address’.
19. The link went to the Council’s School Transport page which contained two separate links to the policy, one of which linked to the 2019 policy instead of the new policy. The Council corrected this error in March 2025. The Council’s school transport page also included a distance calculator which would list the nearest schools to home.
20. In September 2024 the Council also sent schools via its weekly ‘red bag’ email under the ‘information, updates and guidance’ section ‘a request that the information attached is made available to parents as part of secondary open evenings’. The attached information was a slide presentation which set out that the revised home to school travel policy was being implemented and ‘the main eligibility criteria for eligible pupils is for travel to their nearest suitable school with places available’.
21. The Council’s website for starting secondary school included a link to the September 2024 home to school transport policy. A line on the website page said, ‘we provide free school transport to the nearest school to your home if it is over the required walking distance’.
22. The application disclaimer also said, ‘Please note if you apply for and are allocated a school which is not your nearest suitable school with places available you will be responsible for getting your child to school’.

The Council’s scrutiny committee

23. The Council’s Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee met in February 2026 to discuss the home to school transport policy. Members of the public pre-submitted questions. At the meeting parents raised a concern about the maps the Council had produced for the school transport appeals. They said the coordinates used by the GIS mapping system related to points inside the school grounds and inside the family’s home rather than at a school gate or boundary of the home, calling into question the measured distances.
24. The Council said these coordinates were the unique reference points for the properties used by the system to find addresses. However, the coordinates used for the distance calculations measured from the property address to the nearest school entrance and the maps shared with parents showed the correct distances. The Council said it was collating information to provide a comprehensive response to all enquiries about its mapping system as part of the post implementation review of the policy.
25. The committee resolved to engage in the post implementation review process and to take no further action on the issues raised.

What happened

26. In the normal admissions round Mr X successfully applied for his child to attend the local catchment area school, school A, from September 2025. In May 2025 he received a letter advising him that Y did not qualify for free home to school transport as school A was not the nearest suitable school.
27. In mid-June 2025 Mr X appealed the Council’s decision to refuse school transport. In summary he said the nearest school was not the most suitable school as it would be a significantly longer journey and Y would be the only pupil from their village attending. He said there was a lack of transparency in the decision-making process as the policy did not clearly explain the implication of applying to a catchment school which was not technically the closest school and there was a failure to consult local schools about the changes.
28. Mr X included with his appeal a letter he sent to his MP in September 2024 raising concerns about the policy and the implications of the decision to no longer provide transport to children attending their catchment schools. Mr X said he had had used the ‘find your nearest school’ and noted that the nearest school was in another council’s area.
29. The Council responded at stage one in early July 2025 but did not agree the appeal. It said the Council had applied the policy correctly and school A was not the nearest school. It explained a ‘suitable school’ was not the most suitable for a child or what the parents perceive to be the most suitable. The guidance outlined the nearest school will almost always be their nearest suitable school and being in another authority’s area does not make it unavailable when assessing for school transport. It said the changes to the school transport policy were widely publicised.
30. Mr X submitted a stage two appeal. He raised concerns including:
• Poor communication of the policy and the link to both versions of the policy on the website which was not corrected until March 2025;
• The admissions policy for 2025-26 still referred to transport to the catchment school.
• The lack of prominence of the information provided to schools through the ‘red bag’ bulletin.
• The Council’s report to committee when the policy was approved in July 2024 which highlighted the failure to communicate the policy changes was a key risk.
• Headteachers of the local primary school and School A were unaware of the gravity of the changes.
31. Mr X also said the policy was too rigid and failed to take account of the individual needs of children. Mr X said Y had developed a strong friendship group with others at their primary school who were all attending school A. Choosing the nearest school would separate Y from their friendship group, they would be unable to travel with their sibling who attended school A and no paid travel pass was available to school A causing heightened anxiety for Y. Mr X said the Council had relied on the hypothetical assumption Y would have received a place at the nearest school. Mr X also said the route to the nearest school was not a safe walking route.
32. The Council held Mr X’s stage two appeal in late August 2025. The Council’s report to the appeal committee explained the policy. It said:
• the distance to the nearest school was 7.967 miles. The distance to the catchment school was 8.388 miles away.
• Mr X had responded to the consultation on the policy and there was sufficient information on the website for parents to make an informed decision when applying for schools.
• it acknowledged the transport statement in the admissions arrangements for 2025-26 was not updated for the start of the academic year but did not accept this misleading information has a wide impact.
• it acknowledged there was an issue with a pop up containing the previous policy on the website but said information from the ICT Team showed the impact was minimal.
• it had used its discretionary powers to allow those who already had a bus pass to continue to receive them until there was a change in circumstances or they reached the end of that educational stage.
• parents were reminded of the need to consider transport implications before applying for a school place.
• Y had received a paid bus pass.
33. It explained the system used to calculate the distances and said the safety of the available route where it was beyond the statutory distance was not a consideration.
34. The notes of the appeal hearing record that Mr X attended with a representative. At the start of the hearing the Chair explained the hearing was not a forum for case law to be debated or for the legal basis of the policy to be questioned. It asked that representatives limit their involvement to a statement in support of the appellant and their exceptional circumstances, and that any questions or points of clarification be made through the appellant.
35. The Council’s representative summarised the Council’s case, as set out in the report above. Mr X corrected the Council that Y had not got a paid seat on the school bus, so they now faced the start of term with no transport.
36. The Council officer said its legal team considered the communication of the policy was acceptable. It had looked at how many people has viewed the wrong policy and concluded this was minimal and did not affect parental decision making. Mr X referred to the admissions and transport policies and potential confusion.
37. Mr X asked about the safety of the route and the Council officer explained this was not a consideration. Pupils were not expected to walk the route rather it was a way to measure the distances. The appeal committee asked questions including about the information shared via the ‘red bag’, the link to the old policy on the Council’s website and about the last place allocated at the nearest school.
38. Mr X summarised his case including the anxiety caused to Y who had no alternative means to get to school and whose friends were attending school A. He said Y had a sibling at school A and refusing a bus pass denied Y the opportunity to develop independence and share milestones with their sibling. Mr X said they had not anticipated the current situation. He said the journey to the nearest school would take much longer. The decision would split Y from their friends.
39. Mr X’s representative referred to the Council already admitting to errors in communication and previously allowing another appeal around communication errors. They referred to the impact on Y who would be split from their friends.
40. The appeal committee did not uphold the appeal, by majority decision. In its deliberations one member raised concerns about the communication of the policy which they said had repeatedly arisen as a significant area of concern. Other members noted Mr X was aware of the policy even if he did not fully understand the implications and so the situation was parental choice. They noted the circumstances of the separate appeal previously upheld which Mr X and his representative had referred to and said that the circumstances were not directly comparable.
41. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. In his complaint Mr X also raised concerns about the accuracy of the distances on the maps he was provided with. He said the coordinates on the maps did not equate to an entrance but to the centre of the buildings and this called into question whether the catchment school was actually the nearest.
42. Regarding the role of representatives at hearings, in response to our enquiries on a separate complaint, the Council explained that those attending can bring someone to provide support through the appeals process. It said in some previous hearings the representative dominated proceedings and raised issues not relevant to the appeal focusing on the Council’s development of the policy and its legality. To ensure appeals focused on the appellant, the chair requested supporters, once they had made their statement, directed any further points or questions through the appellant.

Findings

The new policy

43. The law does not specify how a council should determine which is the nearest school. The statutory guidance says councils may wish to use the road route for journeys over three miles but does not require them to do so. The Council’s policy sets out that it calculates the nearest suitable school by measuring the nearest available walked route which includes public rights of way using GIS. The Council is entitled to take this approach. The Council is not required to assess the safety of the route as the child is not expected to walk. Safety is assessed where the home to school distance is less than the statutory walking distance. The Council is not at fault.
44. We expect councils to explain their policies clearly to enable parents to make informed decisions when applying for schools about whether their child might be eligible for school transport. The evidence shows the Council consulted widely on the new policy but there was fault in the way it was communicated. The Council’s website wrongly linked to the old policy which was fault. Other forms on the Council’s website also wrongly referred to transport being provided to the catchment school.
45. The Council’s new policy is a significant change from its previous one. In particular, free transport is no longer automatically provided to catchment area schools over three miles away. The Council’s website referred to transport being provided to the nearest suitable school, but we would not expect parents to be experts in the subtlety of language used in Government guidance and what is meant by suitable school. A parent may wrongly assume the catchment school is the nearest suitable school. It is only within the transport policy itself that the Council states ‘the nearest qualifying school for school travel purposes may not be the catchment school used for admissions purposes’. The Council did not clearly spell out on its website or admissions form that transport would not automatically be provided to the catchment school if it was over three miles away. I am pleased to note the Council has since updated its website to better explain this difference.
46. Although the Council circulated information to all schools, this was in the ‘information, updates and guidance’ section and not in the ‘for action’ section of the email. It asked secondary schools to make parents aware there were policy changes but did not ask primary schools to highlight the changes to year 6 parents who would be applying for secondary school. The attached presentation slides emphasised free transport would be provided to the nearest suitable school but as set out above did not clearly set out that this was not necessarily the catchment school. I am pleased to note the Council has updated the presentation it will send to schools in September 2026. It will also be noted that it is for schools to action rather than simply for information.
47. In his stage two appeal, Mr X also referenced the inaccuracy in the Council’s admissions policy for 2025/26. The Council agreed the admission arrangements for 2025/26 in January 2024, before the Council agreed the new home to school transport policy. The admissions policy, as published on the Council’s website stated at paragraph nine that ‘if the parents name a school other than their catchment area school, they will be responsible for transport under the terms of the home to school transport policy’. At the time the Council agreed the new admissions arrangements in January 2024, the transport policy had yet to change so this was not factually inaccurate. However, the Council failed to take action to highlight the change when the new home to transport was introduced in September 2024. This was fault and added to the confusion, given on balance it is unlikely many parents would have waited until the online application window opened in September 2024 to start considering the options for secondary schools for their children.
48. This poor communication was fault. However, Mr X was aware of the new policy and submitted his views as part of the consultation process. As part of his stage one appeal, he also submitted a letter he had sent to his MP in September 2024 which referred to his concerns about the decision to no longer provide free transport to children attending their catchment schools. The letter also referred to Mr X using the ‘find your nearest school’ form and it set out which schools were the nearest. Therefore, the communication faults did not cause Mr X a significant injustice as he was aware transport was no longer available to the catchment school unless it was the nearest.
49. Mr X may have believed paid transport would be available. The Council is not under a statutory duty to provide paid transport but can, using its discretion, offer paid seats where they are available. This part of the policy has not changed. It may have been preferable for the Council to have raised more awareness of the terms and conditions and limited availability of paid bus passes to ensure parents can make an informed choice, but this is not in itself fault.

Mr X’s appeal

50. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, the law says we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision it made.
51. The notes of the stage two appeal committee’s deliberations show the appeal committee considered the issues Mr X raised about communication and Y’s particular circumstances, but it decided by majority not to uphold the appeal. This is a decision it was entitled to take as there was no evidence of fault in the way it reached that decision.
52. Mr X also complained about the Council’s decision to limit the role of representatives in appeal hearings. The Council has explained why, following earlier appeals, it restricted the ability of representatives to ask questions directly. Mr X was allowed to attend with a representative, and the representative was able make a statement or could ask questions through Mr X. Although this may have been frustrating for Mr X, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make and was not fault. In addition, the records show Mr X was able to put his case across and there is no evidence this caused him any disadvantage.

Mapping issues

53. Mr X has since raised with us his concerns about the coordinates used in the mapping system. These issues were also considered at the Council’s Scrutiny Committee. However, it did not reach a view on whether it was satisfied with the Council’s explanation of how the distances were calculated. This is new information that has not been considered by the appeal committee. It is open to Mr X to approach the Council and ask it to consider a new appeal given this new information if he believes there were errors in the distance calculation which would have made school A Y’s nearest school.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault not causing a significant injustice

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman