The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw school transport for the complainant’s children. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council withdrew free school bus passes for his children and failed to properly explain its decision. He disagrees with the Council’s distance measurement and says the walking route is unsafe. Mr X says this means he will need to adjust his work pattern to drive the children to school. He wants the Council to explain its decision, provide details of its distance calculations and reinstate the free bus passes.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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); 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) In 2025 the Council reviewed its routes from Mr X’s area to the school his children attend. It found an available walking route that was under three miles from Mr X’s home to the school. It then withdrew the children’s free bus passes.
Mr X used his right to appeal to an independent review panel against the Council’s decision. He argued the Council should continue to provide school transport because the distance is over the three mile statutory waking distance and the route is not safe.
The appeal panel considered the information and arguments from Mr X and other parents who were affected. It decided the Council had applied its policy correctly. It supported the Council’s decision that his children were not entitled to free transport and could reasonably be expected to walk to and from school, accompanied if necessary.
The Council is entitled to decide how it measures route distances and what software to use. This may differ to the ways other people might calculate distances. I have seen the maps and the calculation the Council used to measure the distance to school from Mr X’s home. I am satisfied it was measured correctly and the walking route is under three miles. It considered the safety of the walking route alongside the relevant guidance and policies. The Council followed the correct procedure when it made its decision and therefore I cannot criticise the outcome.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on how the Council should calculate distances or whether a walking route is safe. That was for the Council to decide. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that affected the outcome. There is no such evidence here.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman