The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault when it refused Ms X’s application for school transport for her daughter, Z. There was also no fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s appeal.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council: wrongly refused her application for school transport for her daughter, Z; was inconsistent in its approach, as she knew of pupils living in the same village that were offered school transport to the same school; was unreasonable in its analysis of distance, as Z’s nearest sixth form is only closer to her home than her preferred sixth form by 0.13 miles; and failed to properly consider Z’s subject choices, as one of her chosen A-Levels is not available at the nearest sixth form.
She said the refusal caused her and her daughter distress and uncertainty in the months leading up to Z starting her A-Levels.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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 considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
I considered our Guidance on Remedies Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision before I made this final decision. All comments made were carefully considered.
Law and Guidance Statutory guidance on post-16 transport The statutory guidance says councils have discretion to set their own arrangements regarding post-16 transport but they must have regard to various factors. These include: the distance and journey time of the place of learning from the home; having regard for pupils living in particularly rural areas where the transport infrastructure can be more limited; and the need for young people to have reasonable opportunities to choose between courses.
Good practice suggests that a child of secondary school age may reasonably be expected to travel up to 75 minutes each way to access learning. Councils should apply similar expectations to young people of sixth form age.
Councils may ask parents for a contribution towards transport costs but should ensure that any contribution is affordable and have arrangements to support low-income families.
(Post-16 Transport to Education and Training, Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, 2019) Council’s post-16 school transport policy Eligibility The Council’s post-16 travel policy says the Council will only provide a pupil with post-16 travel in years 12 and 13 if the pupil is attending their ‘nearest school sixth form’.
It says, for students wishing to study more specialist subjects which are not available at their nearest sixth form, applications will be considered on an individual, exceptional basis.
The policy says exceptional applications for school transport to a school other than their nearest school sixth form will be considered if: the majority (50% or more) of the student’s A-Levels cannot be studied at their nearest school sixth form, or; more than 50% of the student’s A-Levels are available at the nearest provider but the student requires a particular A-Level subject to access Higher Education for a specific career path and no comparable equivalent is available at the nearest provider.
Payments The Council’s policy says it expects all post-16 students to make a payment towards the cost of travel.
Measuring distance The Council says distances between the pupil’s home and the relevant school are measured ‘by the shortest available walking route which includes Public Rights of Way within Suffolk and roads over county borders’.
‘Spare Seat’ scheme It says if a pupil is not eligible for school transport to be provided as they are not attending their nearest school, they can apply through its ‘Spare Seat Policy’ for a seat on the dedicated school bus route to the school of their choice.
However, the policy explains that some routes may be prohibited from offering spare seats and the availability of spare seats is not usually known before mid-August each year.
It also says as routes change, that any discretionary spare seat offer may be revoked if demand increases for pupils with eligibility, as they will have priority. There is a termly charge for the Spare Seat Scheme which is £930 per year.
(‘Post-16 Travel Policy Statement for 2021/22’, Suffolk County Council)
What I found
What happened Z starts at sixth form college in September 2022. Z decided to study A-Levels that would be relevant to studying Classics at university.
The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) says on its website that for many Classics degrees an entry requirement is an A-Level in Latin or Ancient Greek. It says other relevant A-levels may include history, philosophy and foreign languages.
No schools within commuting distance of Z offered Latin or Ancient Greek. Instead, Z applied to a school which offered an A-Level which she said was most relevant to studying Classics of the subjects available locally.
This school (School A) is nearly eight miles from Z’s home. Z lives in a rural area, so using public transport to get there would take almost two hours and involve three changes. Ms X said she cannot drive her as she works, is a single parent and already drives her other child to college.
In March 2022 Ms X applied to the Council for school transport for Z from her home to School A. Ms X said this dedicated school bus route would be the only reasonable way for Z to get to School A.
The Council refused Ms X’s application as it said there is a nearer school (School B) offering the subjects Z needs and it will only grant school transport to this school as it is the nearest.
Both School A and School B are almost eight miles from Z’s home. The difference in distance between School A and Z’s home, and School B and Z’s home is 0.13 miles.
Ms X appealed on the grounds of: Subject choice. Ms X said Z cannot access a Latin A-Level locally, so the relevant A-Level that Z had found at School A would be her closest relevant subject for studying Classic at university; Inconsistency. Ms X said she knows of two pupils in her village that have been granted school transport to School A, whereas Z has been refused; and Unreasonable distance analysis. Ms X said it is not reasonable to refuse the application due to a difference of 0.13 miles between her house and the two colleges. She also said School B is only closer if Z was walking by public footpath, whereas by road, School A is closer.
The Council refused Ms X’s appeal at both stages of its appeals process and responded as follows: Subject choice. The Council said it had spoken with its Skills team who said a modern foreign language is a suitable substitute for Latin or Ancient Greek if Z wants to study Classics at University. The Council said School B offers the majority of Z’s chosen A-Level subjects and she can study a foreign language there instead of Latin or her other preferred A-Level.
Inconsistency. It said due to data protection laws it could not provide Ms X with any reasons that other pupils’ transport applications may have been accepted.
Unreasonable distance analysis. It said that the Council’s policy is to measure distance for school transport purposes by ‘the shortest available walking route’ and using this measurement School B is closer.
It said Ms X had not provided any evidence that there was an exceptional reason for it to provide school transport for Z.
The Council said Ms X could apply to their Spare Seat scheme. This would mean that if a spare seat on the dedicated school bus route to School A was available, Z could pay for the seat. However, its policy makes clear that this can be subject to change, as any eligible pupils take priority.
We asked the Council to provide evidence that it had applied its policy consistently with regards to other pupils living in the same village as Z who are eligible for school transport to School A.
For data protection reasons we cannot provide details, but the Council has provided us with evidence that its policy was applied fairly.
My findings
The Statutory Guidance on Post-16 Transport allows councils to set their own arrangements regarding post-16 transport.
The Council acted in accordance with its own policy when it measured the distance between Z’s home and the two schools. It would not be reasonable to ask the Council to use a different measurement in this case than it does in others. The Council was not at fault.
The Council provided evidence that it was consistent in applying its transport policy to other pupils in the same village attending School A. We cannot provide more detail than this due to data protection, but the Council was not at fault.
Z could study the majority of her subjects at School B and the Council’s Skills team said her preferred A-Level at School A was not an entry requirement for studying Classics at university. This is echoed in the advice published by UCAS on studying Classics. Therefore, Ms X’s application for transport did not meet the criteria of an ‘exceptional application’ under the Council’s policy.
The Statutory Guidance on Post-16 Transport says councils must have regard to the needs of pupils in rural areas. Z is affected by this, as a dedicated school bus route is the only reasonable way for her to get to school.
The Council has regard to the needs of rural pupils by providing dedicated school bus routes for pupils living in Z’s village. However, it is also within its rights to mandate that dedicated school bus routes must be prioritised for pupils attending their nearest school, or those who have exceptional circumstances. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
Final decision
I have ended my investigation and the Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman