Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council and its transport appeal panel failed to consider all relevant factors before refusing her application for free home to school transport for her child, Y. More specifically, Mrs X complains the Council failed to:
1. consider the impact of her deteriorating medical conditions on her ability to accompany Y to school;
2. consider her husband, Mr X, takes her oldest child to school and back, which means he is unable to assist with school transport for Y; and,
3. explain the alternative arrangements the family could use.

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 the complainant.
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 outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• 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;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

7. In October 2025, Mrs X applied for home to school transport for her child, Y, who attended a primary school less than a mile from the family’s home. Mrs X applied based on the impact her medical conditions had on her ability to accompany Y to school.
8. The Council refused Mrs X’s application. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision.
9. In April 2026, the Council’s Independent Appeal Panel considered Mrs X’s appeal.
10. The Panel considered the evidence, including the written information provided before the hearing. The Council refused school transport for Mrs X’s child because the eligibility criteria set out above were not met. The Panel gave clear reasons for its decision by explaining:

• the distance to Y’s school was under the statutory walking distance of three miles for pupils, like Y, who were over eight years old;
• it considered the walking route safe because it had assessed the route and decided there were appropriate footpaths, lighting and pedestrian crossings; and,
• although Mrs X received Universal Credit, the family were not eligible based on low income grounds as they were not in receipt of free school meals or the maximum level of Working Tax credits. This is in line with the Council’s guidance on Free school transport for students under the age of 16 (available online).

11. Also, based on the evidence I have seen, Mrs X did not apply based on Y having special educational needs, disability or mobility problems.
12. After deciding the eligibility criteria were not met, the Panel considered whether there was enough evidence to support awarding home to school transport assistance on a discretionary basis. It considered the evidence provided by Mrs X, including the medical evidence she provided, but decided this did not sufficiently show Mrs X was unable to accompany her child or make alternative arrangements. It said this meant, where there was no entitlement to support from the Council, parents were responsible for making any necessary arrangements to make sure their children attended school regularly.
13. The Council considered Mrs X’s appeal but decided the reasons she gave did not justify the Council providing transport. It gave clear reasons for its decision that Y did not meet the criteria for being an eligible child. And, it considered whether there were grounds to exercise discretion given the family’s circumstances. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman