The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his requests for the parental mileage costs of taking his daughter to an alternative education provision causing distress and financial loss. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed to: provide school transport for his daughter B to and from her alternative educational provision and Occupational Therapist (OT) appointments since July 2024.
Make the necessary arrangements so he was late applying to the school transport team for costs in February 2025 and had to appeal and; failed to pay him his transport costs for taking B to her educational provision and OT appointments from November 2024 to March 2025 causing distress and financial loss.
Mr X wishes the Council to reimburse his additional costs between November 2024 and March 2025 and apologise for the inconvenience caused.
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 how the organisation made its decision, 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(1), as amended)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Mr X’s concerns from July 2024 when Mrs X requested school transport assistance to August 2025 when Mr X complained to us.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council’s School Transport Policy April 2024 The Council’s school transport policy says to be eligible for funded school transport assistance a child must be of compulsory school age which they reach at the start of the term following their fifth birthday. From the point they reach compulsory school age a child with an EHC Plan is eligible for transport assistance to their nearest appropriate school (as identified by the SEN department) provided it is more than 2 miles from the child’s home address as measured via the nearest available walking route. This rises to 3 miles from the child’s 8th birthday. Transport assistance to a school which is further is normally only provided where the catchment school is unable to offer a place, and the child is attending the next nearest school with space and meets the distance criteria.
DfE statutory guidance and the Council’s policy does not define some “alternative provision” settings as a "Qualifying School".
Local Authorities are allowed to grant transport assistance as an exception to policy using their discretion. As this is a discretionary award the assistance does not begin until the date that it is granted.
The Council’s policy confirms this point and says in point 7.6: “In the case of entitlement being granted upon appeal, reimbursement may be made of expenses incurred upon production of evidence of expenditure from the date upon which the appeal was lodged or, if this falls within a school holiday period, from the start of the following term or half-term. Such reimbursement will be for use of the most cost-effective type of transport” Personal Transport Budget (PTB) The Council offers a PTB as an alternative provision to a special educational needs bus, minibus, taxi or any other contracted transport provision. It is a sum of money paid directly to the parent/guardian to help the child’s attendance at school. The parent is required to use the PTB lawfully and make appropriate arrangements to facilitate their child attending school.
Education Health and Care Plan 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 SEND Tribunal or the council can do this.
Events leading to the complaint The following is a summary of key events. It does not include all the information I considered as part of my investigation.
B has an EHC Plan as she has special educational needs. In February 2024 the Council agreed to provide B with Education Other Than at School (EOTAS) through a programme of alternative provision (AP). The AP was initially based at B’s home, so she did not need any transport. B started with an AP provider I will refer to as Company C, on 7 June 2024 which was away from the family home and Mr and Mrs X transported her there.
Mr and Mrs X used a joint email address when contacting the Council and both have written to the Council about the matter. On 5 July 2024 Mrs X asked the Council for the parental mileage costs to and from Company C since B started attending in June 2024. The Council says this is the first evidence it received from Mr and Mrs X to support reimbursing their mileage costs. The Council sent Mr and Mrs X a direct payment form and asked Mrs X to send their bank details which they provided in August 2024.
Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council in September 2024 the matter had not been resolved despite email correspondence with the SEN service. They said they had been trying to arrange for the Council to pay them parental mileage and had not expected it would be through a direct payment agreement. Because of this they could not account for an outstanding amount due to them. This was because they had not kept records of transport costs as required for direct payments. Mr and Mrs X refused to sign the direct payment agreement. To try and resolve the matter Mr and Mrs X asked the Council: To make them a one-off payment for the outstanding amount. However, the one-off payment would need to include a payment for the remainder of the current half-term (to October 2024). This was because they considered that by the time the Council processed the payment/agreement it was likely to be the end of the half-term anyway.
They (Mr and Mrs X) would apply to the school transport team for a parental mileage allowance for the remainder of the academic term starting from the beginning of the next half term (1 November 2024).
The Council responded at stage 1 of the complaint procedure in October 2024. It apologised for the delay in processing a mileage payment to Mrs X. It agreed to Mr and Mrs X’s request for the one-off payment of £447.36 to refund their mileage costs as Mr and Mrs X could not account for all the outstanding money owed to them. And said it was on the basis Mr and Mrs X would directly contact the Transport Team to request payments of mileage from the beginning of the next half term starting November 2024 as outlined in their email to the Council.
In responding to my enquiries about the complaint the Council says it paid the one-off payment to Mr and Mrs X and asked them to apply for transport through the correct route with the school transport team. This was because the funding for transport should not come from its High Needs Budget.
Mrs X asked for the complaint to be considered under stage 2 of the complaint procedure in November 2024 as she had not received the one-off payment.
Events 2025 The Council investigated the complaint and issued a report on 15 January 2025. This noted Mrs X had been reportedly told on 12 November 2024 she would receive the full payment for mileage costs within 7 to 10 working days, but this had not happened. The Council had processed the payment of £447.36 on 26 November 2024 causing a three-day delay to the payment. The Council upheld the complaint about a late payment. The Council also acknowledged it had issued the Stage 1 response seven working days late. But it had already advised Mrs X of the delay and apologised on 31 October 2024. Mrs X had also received an apology at stage 1 for the delay in making payments for the costs of driving B to and from Company C which was considered a proportionate response.
The stage 2 response agreed that B’s EHC coordinator would contact the school transport team, within a week of the investigation report, to check on the progress of Mr and Mrs X’s application for school transport costs.
On 19 January 2025 the SEN team checked with the school transport team on the parental application. But were told Mr and Mrs X had not made an application. The SEN team reminded Mr and Mrs X on 30 January 2025 they needed to make an application directly as agreed in October 2024. The school transport team received the application for school transport assistance from Mr and Mrs X on 13 February 2025 with a requested start date of 24 February 2025 when the next term began.
Mrs X also asked the school transport team for a backdated refund of mileage costs for the period 4 November 2025 to 14 February 2025. Mrs X said she had understood B’s caseworker was to arrange the payment following the complaint in September 2024. Mrs X sent details of the journeys she had undertaken and costs. The school transport team refused to make any backdated payments for that period saying it had only received her first application for costs on 13 February 2025.
The school transport team refused the application on 11 March 2025 as B was attending alternative provision and so did not consider it was a qualifying school.
The Council fast tracked the application to a stage 1 appeal on 11 March 2025. It considered Mr and Mrs X’s appeal for discretionary school transport as a PTB and approved it as an exception to policy from 11 March 2025 until July 2025. It explained the reason was because the placements Mrs X requested transport for could not be named in the EHC Plan. The Council told Mr and Mrs X they would need to submit a new transport application if they needed transport assistance from September 2025. The assistance would be in the form of a PTB.
Mrs X challenged the start date saying it should be 24 February 2025 as this was the date she had applied from and should not be the appeal date of 11 March 2025. The school transport team clarified the start date would be from the date of the successful appeal being 11 March 2025 according to its Transport Policy. The Council confirmed in response to my enquiries it has paid the PTB to Mr and Mrs X from 11 March 2025 to July 2025.
Mrs X appealed to the Council to reimburse her costs between 04 November 2024 to 10 March 2025. This was not upheld.
My assessment
The documents provided show that B started at the alternative provision in June 2024. Mr and Mrs X applied for parental mileage costs in July 2024. The Council agreed to the request and sent Mr and Mrs X a direct payment agreement to complete. It unfortunate that this led to some delays in payment being made as Mr and Mrs X declined the direct payment arrangement and did not have the evidence to show the costs incurred. Mr and Mrs X put forward a proposal to resolve the matter requesting a one-off payment and that they would then apply for parental mileage from 1 November 2024.
The Council agreed and arranged for the payment to be made. The Council has accepted it was late making the one-off payment and responding to Mr and Mrs X’s stage 1 complaint. The Council has apologised for the delay which is suitable action for it to take and in line with any recommendations we would be likely to make.
The documents show the Council chased up the parental application Mr and Mrs X said they would make. However, this was not received until 13 February 2025 with a requested start date of 24 February 2025. The Council refused the application and then upheld it at appeal. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X are disappointed with the Council’s original decision to refuse the application. But it is a decision it is entitled to make and there is no evidence of fault by the Council as it is according to its Transport policy.
I am aware Mr and Mrs X disagree with Council’s decision not to backdate the start date to 13 February 2025 when they made the application. But the evidence shows the Council has acted according to its Transport policy. This allows entitlement to start from the date an appeal is lodged if it is upheld which in this case was 11 March 2025. There is therefore no fault by the Council, and it has paid Mr and Mrs X from that date.
Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision not to backdate payments between November 2024 and February 2025. But the evidence provided shows Mr and Mrs X have contributed to the injustice they allege they have been caused by not receiving payments. This is because they did not make the parental application as they proposed and agreed to in October 2024 until February 2025. Mr and Mrs X have shown that they were aware they needed to follow the correct route to apply for transport costs through the School Transport team. There is therefore no evidence of fault by the Council in deciding not to pay their mileage costs between those dates as Mr and Mrs X did not make an application.
Decision I find no fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman