Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge Mrs X a contribution towards her child’s post-16 school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council is billing her £900 per year to provide transport for her child with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) to access their college.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions have caused significant stress and financial pressure. Mrs X has had to pay an instalment to ensure her child has transport in September 2026.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s child, Child Y, is due to start post-16 education in September 2026. Child Y’s post-16 placement is at the same school they finished their secondary education. The placement is a specialist school.
8. Mrs X applied to the Council for home to school transport for Child Y in spring 2026. The Council agree that Child Y is eligible for transport. The Council charge a £900 per year contribution towards transport for post-16 students.
9. Mrs X argues the Council should waive this charge as Child Y previously received free transport to the same setting. Mrs X says he would also be entitled to free transport if accessing education as an adult learner in the future.
10. The statutory guidance says a learner with special educational needs and disabilities may take longer to complete a programme of learning or training. It is good practice for councils to extend transport arrangements until a learner has completed their programme even if that is after they reach the age of 19. It is also good practice not to charge a contribution for transport for a young person assessed under the sixth form age duty, if it is likely they will be eligible for free transport under the adult transport duty.
11. Statutory guidance allows Councils to make a charge for transport it offers to eligible pupils for post-16 transport. It is good practice for Council’s to set out the average cost of post-16 transport in their area and to target any additional support to those with a low income.
12. In the Council’s stage two response, it directly considers the points raised in paragraphs 10 and 11. The Council considers its duty to use public resources efficiently as its justification for charging Mrs X. While it is good practice not to charge, it is not fault for the Council to charge if it has considered its discretion before deciding.
13. The Council’s policy sets out its average cost per pupil as £900, the charge made to Mrs X. It has a fifty percent deduction, to £450, for low-income families. Through the application, the Council has decided the low-income discount is not applicable for Child Y based on evidence Mrs Y provided.
14. As the Council considered its discretion and the details of Mrs Y’s application when making its decision and followed the requirements of the statutory guidance and its own policy, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Therefore, we cannot question the outcome and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman