The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council not providing enough financial support to assist with taking his children to school. We have not found fault with how the Council applied its policy. The Council has agreed additional discretionary payments to Mr X towards transporting his son who is not eligible for transport costs.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the amount of money paid to him to transport his daughter to school. He says the shortest distance calculated is a much longer duration than his usual route. He also complains about the Council’s refusal to provide transport support for his son when his daughter is not at school. This causes him financial hardship and physical discomfort as he is disabled.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.
What I found
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) 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.
A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. An EHC Plan describes the child’s special educational needs and the provision needed to meet them.
Councils should have an appeals’ process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. (Home to School transport guidance July 2014 paragraphs 54-55) The Council’s policy The Council has an Education Transport Policy under which it will pay fuel costs for two return journeys per day to the qualifying school, at a rate of 45 pence per mile for eligible children.
The Council uses a geographical information system to measure and calculate home to school distances and bases the payments made on this.
What happened Mr X’s daughter, B, has an EHC Plan which names a qualifying school some distance away.
Mr X is paid a fuel allowance to transport B to and from school. He is paid at 45 pence per mile as she is an eligible child under the Council’s policy.
The Council pays for two daily return journeys based on the shortest distance calculated using its measuring system. Mr X receives £29.02 per day.
Mr X chooses to drive a longer route that avoids town centre congestion but is quicker. He says he cannot comfortably sit for long periods because of a disability.
The Council says it is parental choice about which exact route may be taken but that payments are calculated using the shortest distance regardless of route chosen.
Early in 2022, Mr X asked the Council to increase the amount paid per mile for B and to cover costs of transporting his son, C, to school.
In March 2022, the Council said it would not increase the fuel allowance paid and that he could apply for transport support for C if he wished.
Mr X disagreed with distances quoted and outlined his difficulties with current arrangements. He asked the Council to organise a taxi for B.
In April 2022, the Council responded to re-confirm its decision: it pays for only the shortest calculated distance; a passenger assistant was not currently authorised for B; no transport application had been received for C; any request for a taxi for B needed to be logged; and any attendance at after school clubs for B would not be accommodated.
Mr X told the Council that he was still transporting C to school even when B was not attending and he received no financial contribution towards this. For days when B is not at school, the allowance is deducted from the next payment.
Mr X asked the Council to calculate the costs of a taxi for B. It advised him he could use his fuel allowance towards the cost of arranging his own taxi if he wished.
Mr X applied for transport costs for C. The Council declined the application because C is not an eligible child and his parents had chosen for logistical reasons to send him to a school near to B’s school, not the nearest suitable school to home.
Mr X made a second stage appeal to the Council. It agreed (on an exceptional and discretionary basis) to pay fuel costs for two return journeys per day to C’s school, at a rate of 17 pence per mile. This is in addition to the fuel allowance paid for B. Mr X accepted the offer. He receives £10.64 per day to transport C.
The Council said if Mr X was for any reason no longer able to transport B to school, then the award for C may be re-considered and possibly withdrawn.
If B is unable to attend school, the Council will still pay agreed costs for C to be taken to his school.
Analysis I find no fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s request for transport costs for B. It is entitled to pay fuel costs for the shortest route applicable. Its Education Transport Policy is clear in this.
Although Mr X has clear reasons for taking a different route, the Council is not liable to pay the additional costs for this. The Council has explained that it considered the distance and payment based on its duty to arrange transport for B, and not on any disability Mr X may have. There are no grounds to criticise this.
Mr X has at times asked the Council to arrange a taxi to take B to school but the Council has explained that, if it agrees to provide a taxi, this will not include transport home from after-school clubs which B attends. In addition, the taxi provision for B would not be available for C. There are no grounds to question the Council’s stance on this which is in accordance with its policy.
It is open to Mr X to make an application to the Council for a taxi for B if he wishes to do so.
Transport for C When Mr X applied for transport costs for C, the Council turned his application down as C is not eligible according to law or Council policy. The Council considered relevant facts and was entitled to make such a decision. It was not at fault for taking this approach.
On appeal, the Council decided to make a discretionary payment for C at a lower rate (as specified in its policy).
The Council has no liability to contribute towards costs for transporting C to school but has agreed to do so, after considering the family’s circumstances further.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation and do not uphold this complaint. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman