Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her children with home to school transport when her family was moved to temporary accommodation. There was no fault by the Council in the way it considered and made its decision about home to school transport support in Miss X’s case.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to support her children (B, G and Y) with home to school transport when she was moved to temporary accommodation. In particular one of her children, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan.
2. Miss X said the matter caused her distress, worry, financial strain and loss due to transport costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated matters from December 2024 to June 2025. This covers the period from when Miss X moved to temporary accommodation to when Miss X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
7. I have not investigated matters relating to the content of Y’s EHC Plan, in particular Section I (named setting). These are matters for the Tribunal and are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Miss X’s right of appeal was engaged when Y’s final EHC Plan was issued in May 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Home to School Transport Support

10. 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 (SEN) 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)

SEN Transport - nearest suitable school

11. If only one school is named in a young person’s EHC plan, then that is the school the council has determined is the nearest suitable school for the child. It is therefore the nearest ‘qualifying school’ for the child to attend for school transport consideration. This is because the council has not made arrangements for the child to attend a closer school. (S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 346.) Where the child is attending the ‘nearest suitable school’, they will qualify for free transport, provided any other relevant conditions are met.
12. Transport Appeals - Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. The guidance recommends a two-stage procedure for school transport appeals.

Children with EHC Plans – parental choice and transport

13. Where a parent's choice of school differs to a council's, before deciding whether it can refuse to name the parent’s choice due to the additional costs of transport to that school, the council must consider if both schools are suitable to meet the needs of the child and whether there is a place available for them to attend the council’s choice of school. If both schools are suitable and have places, then the cost of providing transport to both should be calculated and taken into account when considering whether the parent’s choice is incompatible with the efficient use of resources. If the council concludes the parent’s choice is an inefficient use of its resources, then it can refuse to name the preferred school or decide to name the parent’s choice on the condition the parents provide transport (to their choice of school). The council should take steps to ensure parents are well informed (where they are to be responsible for transport arrangements) and clearly record this, for example in a child’s EHC Plan or a decision letter (S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 346.).

Homelessness

14. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them [and anyone who lives with them/might reasonably be expected to live with them] to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Education, Health and Care Plan

16. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or the council can do this.
17. Where a parent or young person disagrees with the contents of the EHC Plan there is a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) tribunal when the final plan is issued.

The Council’s SEND School Transport Policy

18. The Council will provide free school transport if the child:

• has an EHC Plan that states the child needs help to attend school.
• must go to the school that is identified in their EHC Plan, as the nearest one that can meet their needs.

19. Where the parent chooses for the child to go to a different school, the parent will take full responsibility for transport.

Background

20. Miss X has three children of compulsory school age (B, G and Y).
21. Y has some health conditions, special educational needs (SEN) and has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The named setting in Y’s Plan was School 1 (a mainstream school).
22. Y and G attend School 1, while B attends School B.
23. When Miss X and her children lived in their previous accommodation, the Council provided B with home to school transport support (a bus pass). The Council also provided Y with school transport support to attend School 1 through a mileage agreement with Miss X. The mileage cost was calculated based on the distance from Miss X’s previous accommodation to School 1.
24. Miss X said G benefitted from the school transport support awarded to Y because they both attend School 1.
25. In November 2024, an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan was held.

Key events

26. In December 2024, Miss X and her children were moved to an out of borough temporary accommodation (TA) after they were served with an eviction notice.
27. The Council withdrew the school transport support it provided to B and Y when Miss X’s family moved to their TA.
28. Miss X applied to the Council for school transport support for B, G and Y, so they could continue to attend their schools (School B and School 1) from their TA.
29. The Council informed Miss X that it was responsible to provide school transport support to children of statutory school age who attended the nearest available school / within the catchment area from their homes. The Council refused to provide transport support to Miss X’s children from their TA. The Council said it would consider Y’s case further in relation to the named setting agreed in his EHC Plan.
30. Miss X submitted an appeal against the Council’s decision not to award B with school transport support to School B.
31. In January 2025, the Council considered and agreed it would continue to provide Y with school transport support to attend School 1 while his EHC Plan was being reviewed. This was because School 1 was the named school in his Plan and the distance was more than three miles from Miss X’s TA. The Council continued to pay mileage allowance to Miss X for Y’s transport pending when his final EHC Plan would be issued. Miss X said G continued to benefit from Y’s transport support.
32. The Council said Miss X withdrew the appeal she submitted for B when it offered a mileage allowance for Y’s transport.
33. The Council consulted with a mainstream school (School 2) for Y which was in the catchment area and the closest school to Miss X’s TA. School 2 agreed to offer Y a placement. The Council informed Miss X about its consultation with School 2 and the placement offer.
34. Miss X made a complaint to the Council. She said mainstream schools were not suitable for Y and she questioned the Council’s decision to consult with School 2 given how long it took Y to settle in School 1 due to his mental health. Miss X said School 2 could not meet Y’s SEN and that moving Y to another mainstream school would massively affect his life and education negatively. Miss X said she would like Y to remain in School 1, but she could not afford the travel cost to get Y to School 1 from her TA. Miss X expressed her frustration with the Council’s failure to properly consider Y’s SEN, her housing situation and its refusal to provide Y with home-to-school transport support.
35. In its responses to Miss X’s complaint, the Council:

• confirmed it consulted with School 2, and it was an appropriate setting for Y.
• acknowledged Miss X’s housing situation and it said Miss X could decide whether Y should continue to attend School 1. It said if that was the case, Miss X would be responsible for the transport costs because School 2 was closer to her TA which was available and could meet Y’s needs.
• said Miss X would also be responsible for school transport if she decided that B and G should continue to attend School B and School 1 respectively.

36. In May, the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan following an annual review held in late 2024. Section I of the final Plan stated:

• School 2 was the catchment setting
• But parents requested that Y attended School 1 and agreed to be responsible for all transport arrangements and costs. If for any reason, parents are unable to no longer / willing to arrange and fund the transport, then Y would be expected to attend the nearest suitable mainstream setting.

37. The Council advised Miss X of her right of appeal to the Tribunal if she disagreed with the content of Y’s final EHC Plan. Miss X did not exercise her appeal right, she said this was because she was already communicating with the Council about her concerns with a change of school for Y.
38. The Council informed Miss X that because School 1 had been named as parental choice in Y’s EHC Plan, it would no longer pay the mileage allowance for Y’s school transport to School 1.
39. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses, and she made a complaint to the Ombudsman. Miss X confirmed Y did not miss out on school since they moved to their TA as a result of the school transport support concerns.
40. The Council confirmed B, G and Y were not attending the nearest schools to their TA and so they were not entitled to home to school transport support in line with its policy.

Analysis

41. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and as such it is not our role to take a second look at if a Council’s home to school transport support decision was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes a Council followed to make its decision. If we consider the Council followed those processes correctly in line with the relevant law and guidance, we cannot question its decision.
42. In this case, the Council considered and made its decision about the home to school transport support applications Miss X submitted for B, G and Y. The Council explained its reasons for its refusal to award transport support to the children and I find this was done in line with statutory guidance and its school transport policy. This was not fault. Where a child would have been admitted to the nearest suitable school, had the parent applied, the council can legitimately refuse the application for free home to school transport to another school.
43. I am also satisfied the Council took reasonable steps to properly consider Y’s case as he had an EHC Plan. The Council considered the named setting in his Plan (School 1) at the time, and it decided to continue to pay mileage allowance to Miss X while Y’s EHC Plan was being reviewed. This was so Y could continue to attend School 1 until his final EHC Plan was issued in May 2025. This was not fault.
44. The Council provided Miss X with clear information about what her responsibilities would be with regards to transport expenses for B, G and Y. The Council informed Miss X she would be responsible for the travel costs to School B and School 1 from their TA, if she wanted B, G and Y to continue attending these schools.
45. While I acknowledge Miss X’s housing situation and her concerns about Y’s SEN, the Council’s policy is clear in setting out the criteria for when it would be responsible to provide travel support to a child with an EHC Plan. In particular, where a parent chooses for the child to go to a different school (which is not the nearest school), the parent will take full responsibility for transport cost.
46. The Council consulted with School 2 and found it was available and suitable for Y, but Miss X said she wanted Y to remain in School 1. Therefore, the Council decided to name both schools in Y’s final EHC Plan, and it clearly stated in the Plan that Miss X would pay the transport costs if Y continued to attend School 1. These were not faults.
47. The Council’s refusal decision in this case was one it was entitled to make, and the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision which has been properly reached. I do not therefore find fault by the Council in the way it considered and reached its decision not to award home to school transport support to B, G and Y to continue to attend School B and School 1.
48. Miss X said she believed School 2 could not meet Y’s SEN. The Ombudsman cannot direct changes to the sections in an EHC Plan about a child’s needs, education or the named setting. I find it was reasonable for Miss X to have exercised her appeal right to the Tribunal when Y’s final EHC Plan was issued, if she disagreed with the content of the Plan.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find no fault by the Council in the way it considered and made its decision about home to school transport support in Miss X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman