Summary: There was fault by a transport appeal panel in deciding to offer a personal travel allowance (PTA) without considering the method, or cost, of transport that would be required. This casts doubt on whether the PTA will facilitate the young person’s attendance in a safe, practical and affordable way. This uncertainty is an injustice. The Council will retake the decision, taking all relevant matters into account.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to provide home to school transport for his child, Y's, post-16 education. The Council offered a personal travel allowance (PTA) after a stage two appeal, but Mr X says this is not suitable.
2. Mr X says since transport has been removed Y is unable to attend school two days per week.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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.
5. An organisation 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.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council.
8.  I 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.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
10. 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

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 Education (Waltham Forest) [2006] EWHC 3144 (Admin) states that given the different duty 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.”

15. 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.
16. In assessing what transport arrangements are appropriate, a council must take into account all relevant considerations arising in the individual circumstances of each case. “They 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” (TYC (by his mother and litigation friend KVD) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWHC 623).
17. In the TYD case the Court found the Council failed to consider whether it was reasonable to expect a parent to give up work to drive TYC to school. By disregarding this material fact, the Council’s decision to provide a cash mileage payment, instead of considering providing transport, was found to be irrational.
18. Councils should have a process in place for parents who want to appeal about a Council’s exercise of, or failure to exercise, a function under sections 509AA to 509AD of The Act.
19. The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:

• Stage one: review by a senior officer; and
• Stage two: an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, 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 complaining to us.

20. The Ombudsman’s expectation is that in deciding whether to provide support, or in considering the type of support to offer, the Council should be able to demonstrate how it has satisfied itself there is a safe, practicable and affordable way for the student to attend their education setting.

Council’s policy

21. The Council issued an updated travel policy statement for 2025-6 setting out the support it would 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.
22. The policy says transport assistance may be provided where a young person falls outside the above eligibility criteria but has exceptional circumstances.
23. Where a pupil was eligible for support, the Council’s policy said the usual offer would be independent travel training, but where that was inappropriate, a PTA in bands based on distance (£1000-3000 per year) would be provided. For journeys between 3 and 10 miles the PTA was £1000 per year. The policy recognised that sometimes a PTA might not be appropriate either, and the council would continue to consider providing council-organised transport, such as a mini-bus or taxi, on a discretionary basis in exceptional circumstances.
24. Exceptional circumstance criteria included:
• The complexity of medical needs and/or special educational needs or disability
• Where transport assistance is the most efficient use of council resources
• Where it is considered 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)
• Circumstances around the availability/logistics of independent travel options.

What happened

25. Mr X applied for post-16 transport support in Spring 2025 on behalf of his disabled child, Y. Until July 2025, Y had received door-to-door transport arranged by the Council under rules for children of statutory school age.
26. The application was considered under the new Council policy for 2025/6.
27. Y was found not to meet the criteria because the family lived 2.1 miles from Y’s special school and the minimum qualifying distance under the Council’s new policy was 3 miles.
28. Mr X appealed to stage one; the Council upheld the original decision on two grounds:
• In-eligible on distance,
• The needs were not considered to meet exceptional circumstances criteria that would allow for discretionary transport assistance below 3 miles.
29. The Council decided Y could manage the journey if accompanied by a responsible adult.
30. Mr X appealed to stage two, which was an appeal panel, delayed until Spring 2026. Mr X’s case was:
• Y could not travel independently due to SEND.
• Y was unfamiliar with public transport, lacked awareness of danger and could become agitated around other people.
• Y had a history of absconding.
• Parents could not accompany Y daily due to work commitments meaning by the time of the stage two appeal panel Y was attending education only three days per week, a 47% attendance rate, which affected Y’s learning, social development, independence and wellbeing.
• Y’s sibling was using school transport, and Y would become distressed and dysregulated that they could no longer use it.
31. The Council’s case at stage two was:
• The decision was upheld at stage one appeal on the basis Y could manage the journey if accompanied by a responsible adult.
• It was the parent’s responsibility to make suitable arrangements.
• Y’s needs did not justify overruling the 3-mile eligibility distance rule.
• Parental work constraints ‘cannot be used as eligibility grounds’. Parent’s inability to accompany the child ‘is not a factor that can be used to approve transport. The Council had advised the parent to explore flexible working instead’.
32. The stage two appeal panel notes show additional information was obtained orally:
• Mr X was having to take Y which affected finances due to impact on his work.
• His work was not flexible.
• Y could be physically aggressive when he saw his sibling get on school transport and he could not. Y could not understand this was beyond parental control.
33. The stage two panel decided to award discretionary transport support under the exceptional circumstances criteria. The offer was a band 1 PTA of £1000. The family was managing three days per week, and the panel decided the PTA would support transport on the other days.
34. Mr X did not consider the type of support offered was suitable and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
35. I asked the Council whether, given the offer was made at the last stage of the appeal process, there was any further stage for a parent to challenge the type of support offered. The Council told me there was not a mechanism other than the formal Stage 1 & 2 appeals, but it would take a pragmatic approach and if a parent / carer emailed to explain why they really don't think a PTA is appropriate after an award, the service would look at it.
36. In response to other complaints we have considered following introduction of the Council’s new policy, the Council told us it has done its own internal review and has committed to redesign application forms to better capture families’ financial circumstances and personal situations. Additionally, the Council will develop a concise, one-page guidance document for panel members summarising relevant transport and legislative policy information in an accessible format. Outcome letters will in future reference the Education Act 1996, sections 509AA and 509AB (where applicable), and explicitly refer to ‘practicable’ and ‘affordable’ criteria to enhance transparency for families regarding panel decisions and their underlying rationale.

Analysis

37. The law on parents accompanying young adults to their education setting has evolved through caselaw and is not set out in the legislation or statutory guidance. The caselaw says councils can ask parents and carers to accompany their young adult to and from their education setting, but they cannot have a blanket policy that all parents must do so irrespective of family circumstances or impact on the family. The Council must consider each case on its individual facts.
38. At the initial decision stage, the Council rejected the application purely on distance and did not consider if the exceptional circumstance criteria were met. This was fault. It did not cause Mr X injustice as he appealed, but other families may have dropped the matter at that stage.
39. At the stage two appeal the Council’s case was that parent’s employment can never be a matter that can be considered. This is inaccurate. While statutory guidance for children aged 5-16 does refers to parent’s work and care commitments not usually being a reason not to accompany a child, this is not found in the Act or statutory guidance for post-16. Caselaw has found that councils are expected to make exceptions where not to do so would cause hardship. In a recent post-16 case, the Court found it would be irrational not to consider individual circumstances when the effect of not providing transport would mean a parent having to give up work. (TYC (by his mother and litigation friend KVD) v Birmingham City Council [2025])
40. However, in Mr X’s case the Panel did not follow the advice from the Council’s representative and did explore the impact on Mr X’s work at the hearing. The incorrect advice therefore did not cause injustice to Mr X.
41. The Ombudsman is pleased to note the Council’s own review of the first year of its new policy has recognised that more guidance is needed to families and decision makers to ensure issues of what is practicable for parents to do, and affordability, are considered.
42. The stage two panel decided exceptional circumstance criteria was met, which means it decided it was ‘necessary’ for the Council to provide assistance to facilitate Y’s attendance at school. The panel made the default award of a PTA based on the distance between the home and setting.
43. Having decided transport assistance was necessary, the Ombudsman’s expectation is that the support offered by a Council can facilitate the attendance, that is, the support matches the need and represents a safe, practicable and affordable transport solution.
44. However, there is no evidence to show the panel considered whether a PTA of £1000 would succeed in facilitating attendance while leaving the family with an affordable amount to pay. Mr X says a taxi would be needed for the two days the family cannot assist. The panel did not ask for details of what a taxi would cost, or ask about family finances, or consider if other options were available. The panel did not therefore have information about the overall cost, and whether a £1000 PTA would leave the family with an affordable amount to pay. This was fault and casts doubt on the decision reached. The uncertainty whether the panel may have made a different decision had full information been sought, is an injustice.
45. While I acknowledge the Council would have been willing to look again at the decision if Mr X had raised concerns the PTA was not an appropriate solution, this was not communicated to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month of our final decision:
• The Council will review the decision to offer a PTA, making sure it considers issues such as practicability and affordability, and satisfies itself the PTA will be sufficient to facilitate the attendance.
• The Council will provide Mr X with the outcome of its review in writing, giving reasons.
• If the Council decides the PTA falls short of what is required to facilitate attendance and makes a different offer, the Council should consider whether Mr X should be offered a remedy for any period inadequate support was in place.
• If Mr X remains dissatisfied, he can bring the matter back to the Ombudsman for a further view on the new decision / remedy.
47. Considering the actions the Council has already taken to improve its service for 2026-7 I do not intend to recommend further service improvements.
48. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman