Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award free home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council should provide her child, Y, with free home to school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X which included the Council’s final reply to her.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In advance of Y starting at secondary school in September 2026 Mrs X applied for home to school transport. She says the children in her village have traditionally gone to School Z as her elder child does. She says they are provided with free home to school transport.
6. The Council refused her application. It said that School Z was not their nearest suitable school. She appealed to the Council’s internal appeal process. It considered her appeal and provided its decision in writing to her in June 2026. It refused to grant home to school transport. It said School Q was her nearest suitable school.
7. Mrs X complained to us. She said the Council had falsely stated its policy. She says its policy is the nearest school or geographically associated school. She says her village is included in School Z’s geographically associated school list.

Analysis

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’ include:
• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above). (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)
9. The Council’s policy on line has a list of which villages qualify as a geographically associated for each secondary school. Mrs X’s village is listed under School Q not School Z. This means it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to initially refuse the application or in the information it used to consider her appeal.
10. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. The Council has such an appeal process and Mrs X used it here. Its decision letter shows it considered her case but decided against granting home to school transport.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision.
12. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to refuse home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault.
13. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, its own policies and Mrs X’s information.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman