Summary: There was fault in the way the Council communicated its home to school transport policy for September 2025 school admissions. There was also fault in how it considered Mrs X’s appeal for home to school transport. These faults have caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty that her appeal was decided correctly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and offer her a fresh stage two appeal hearing.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her child Y with free transport to their catchment secondary school following a change in the Council’s home to school transport policy. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly communicate the new policy and the committee failed to properly consider this and the family’s exceptional circumstances. She also says the coordinates used by the Council in measuring the distances were wrong and not in line with the policy. She says this has caused her frustration and uncertainty.

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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I gave Mrs 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 ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above).
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 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 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 Mrs X successfully applied for her child to attend the local catchment area school, school A, from September 2025. In May 2025 she received a letter advising her that Y did not qualify for free home to school transport as school A was not the nearest suitable school.
27. In May 2025 Mrs X appealed at stage one for school transport. She explained her working hours were not flexible and she had to transport Y to school. All Y’s peers had received transport, and Y was already anxious about the move to secondary school. Shortly after, she complained to the Council and asked for a copy of the maps showing the distances.
28. In early June Mrs X provided the Council with a letter from Y’s primary school which said Y’s close friendships had helped their self-confidence grow. It said to split Y from their friends on the journey to and from school would be absurd and callous.
29. Mrs X contacted the Council again in mid-June as she had not yet received copies of the maps.
30. The Council sent Mrs X its stage one review in late June. It said it had reached its decision in line with the policy. If Mrs X had applied to the nearest school Y would have received a place. It noted the primary school’s letter and that transition could be an anxious time however the policy was being applied consistently in fairness to all families.
31. Mrs X’s local councillor contacted the Council in early July also asking for the maps on her behalf. In mid-July the Council provided Mrs X with a copy of the maps and some information explaining the difference between the catchment areas for school admissions and the nearest school for the school transport policy.
32. Mrs X submitted a stage two appeal in mid July 2025. She said she had only just received the maps from the Council, but it had not explained how the distances were calculated. Mrs X’s case included the impact on Y’s social and emotional well-being, that the Council failed to properly communicate the change and that driving would add to pollution. She provided a GP letter which set out Y’s strong aversion to using public transport and the significant anxiety caused by the prospect of having to use it. She also referred to the letter from the primary school she had previously provided.
33. The Council responded to Mrs X’s request for information on how the distances were measured in late August. It explained the map showed the route and how it was calculated.
34. The Council held Mrs X’s stage two appeal in September 2025. The Council’s report to the appeal committee set out that Y’s nearest secondary school, a school in a neighbouring council area, was 7.528 miles from home. The distance to Y’s catchment school was 7.542 miles. If Y had applied to the nearest school, they would have got a place based on the distance to home of the last place offered. It said the change in policy was widely publicised.
35. The notes of the appeal hearing record that Mrs X asked about the website links to the old policy. The Council presenting officer accepted there was an error with one link. They said the legal team felt there was sufficient information on the website for parents to make an informed choice.
36. Mrs X asked if all primary schools were informed of the policy change. The Council said they had been and it had provided a letter via schools for year six parents.
37. Mrs X said the admissions guide on the website referred to transport being provided to the catchment school. She also referred to two forms on the Council’s website, including the form to request a change to an existing application, which stated transport would be provided to the catchment school. The presenting officer said they were not aware of this.
38. The presenting officer explained that if Mrs X now applied for the nearest school and got a place, Y would get transport.
39. Mrs X presented her case. She raised her concerns about communication and said the primary school had not received the ‘red bag’ notification. She emphasised the importance of clear communication to allow parents to make an informed choice.
40. Mrs X said all Y’s friends had a place on the bus and not getting transport affected Y’s emotional wellbeing and caused them anxiety and stress, affecting their sleep. For Y’s wellbeing they needed to travel with their peer group. Y had an aversion to public transport and although Y now had a paid pass this affected their whole summer holiday. She said the nearest school was actually further by road. If she had known about the policy change, she may have attended the open day at the nearest school.
41. Mrs X’s representative, a local councillor, also made a statement. They highlighted how marginal the difference in distance was between the nearest and catchment schools. They highlighted the lack of communication and the impact on Y’s wellbeing.
42. The appeal committee decided the policy was correctly applied. It decided there were not sufficient exceptional circumstances to uphold the appeal.
43. In her complaint to us Mrs X also raised concerns about the accuracy of the distances on the maps she was provided with. She 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.

Findings

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.
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.
47. In her stage two appeal, Mrs 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 is fault and meant Mrs X could not make a fully informed decision about which secondary school to apply for. The appeal committee went on to consider her appeal for school transport.

Mrs X’s appeal

49. 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.
50. At the stage two appeal hearing, in its deliberations the committee made no comment on the points Mrs X raised about communication of the new policy. There is no evidence the committee properly considered the impact on Mrs X of how the new policy was communicated, that the website had a link to the old policy or the confusion with the admissions policy. This was fault which leaves Mrs X with uncertainty over what decision the committee would have reached had it properly considered the information she provided about communication of the new policy. It is for the committee to decide what, if any, impact this fault may have had on Mrs X’s original school admission application and subsequent school transport application.

Mapping issues

51. The Council delayed providing Mrs X with maps showing the routes from home to school for the nearest and catchment schools. She requested this twice and these were also requested by her local councillor on her behalf before the Council sent them to her. This delay was fault which caused Mrs X frustration.
52. Mrs X has since raised with us her concerns about the coordinates used in the mapping system. Given the small difference between the distance to the nearest and catchment school of 0.014 miles, if there is fault, this could affect which school is the nearest. The issues with the accuracy of the maps provided to parents 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. The Scrutiny Committee was given an explanation but no evidence to support the Council’s assertion that although the maps showed coordinates inside the school, the measurement itself was to another point - the school’s nearest entrance. Mrs X’s concerns are new information that has not been considered by the appeal committee. It is open to Mrs X to present this information as part of the new stage two appeal that I have recommended.

Back to top

Agreed Action

53. Within two months of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. arrange a new second-stage appeal committee to consider Mrs X’s appeal again. The panel should comprise of new members. In particular it should ensure it considers the way the Council communicated the new policy and the impact this may have had on Mrs X and the accuracy of the mapping information used to measure the distances in Mrs X’s case.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Decision

55. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman