Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing Ms B’s application for support for her son to travel to college. It considered the available evidence and properly explained its decision. As there were no procedural errors undermining the Council’s decision-making, we have no power to question the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, complains on behalf of her son, whom I refer to as Mr C.
2. Mr C is an adult with learning difficulties (particularly relating to speech and language). He attends a college which is too far away to walk to.
3. Ms B complains that the Council refused her application for Mr C to be transported to and from college. She says the Council did not recognise the extent of his learning difficulties, and its proposed bus journey is too complicated and stressful for him to manage on his own. She says that, although he has previously received ‘travel training’, it was insufficient for his needs.
4. Ms B says this matter has caused her and Mr C distress, and she has had to pay for taxis for Mr C. She wants the Council to arrange transport, to reimburse her for what she has already spent, to compensate her and Mr C for their distress, and to improve its service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Ms B and the Council.
8. I considered:
• Relevant parts of the Education Act 1996.
• The Council’s special educational needs (SEN) and post-16 transport policies.
9. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s responsibilities

10. Councils must arrange transport they consider necessary for adults with special educational needs to attend their education or training placements. (Education Act 1996, section 508F)
11. Councils do not have to provide free post-16 travel support. But students with learning difficulties who are in full time education may be entitled to additional support if they cannot travel independently. (The Council’s post-16 transport policy)
12. The Council will consider travel support for students with severe physical or learning difficulties if there is sufficient evidence. (The Council’s post-16 transport policy)
13. The Council expects students to receive training to enable them to travel independently to college. However, when a student cannot travel independently, the Council may provide additional travel support. (The Council’s SEN transport policy)
14. Students who can travel to school independently, but choose not to, will not receive travel support from the Council. (The Council’s SEN transport policy)

What happened

Background

15. In 2021, Mr C completed some travel training. The company who did the training ‘signed him off’ for walking to and from college.
16. In early 2022 the Council issued an education, health and care (EHC) plan for
    Mr C. This was a document which described his SEN and set out how the Council would meet them. The plan said Mr C “has completed some of his travel training programme, [but] still needs support to travel independently”.

The Council’s transport refusal

17. In July 2022, shortly before Mr C was due to start a new college which was too far away to walk to, the Council rejected Ms B’s application for travel support. It said this was because Mr C had received travel training.
18. Ms B contacted the travel training company about this (noting that Mr C had only been ‘signed off’ to walk to college, not get the bus) and the company agreed to re-start training when he started his new college.
19. In September, the travel training company visited Mr C, who refused to engage with the service. The company reallocated a male worker to Mr C’s case, whom Mr C preferred, but he still refused to get the bus to college.
20. Consequently, the travel training company withdrew its service.
21. Shortly after this, Mr C’s GP emailed the Council in support of Ms B’s transport application. They asked whether the Council could provide temporary travel support until the travel training became available again.
22. The Council wrote to Ms B. It said it had already offered Mr C suitable travel support. It said he was choosing not to participate, which, as set out in its SEN transport policy, meant it would not offer an alternative.
23. In November, Ms B told the travel training company that neither she nor Mr C thought the training would work. The company removed Mr C from its waiting list.
24. In January 2023, Mr C’s EHC plan was reviewed. The review record said, “Travel training to focus on independent travel travelling one to two stops on one bus route until confidence is built up on Public Transport”.

Ms B’s complaints

25. Ms B complained to the Council, saying Mr C’s travel training had not prepared him for his journey to college. She said this was also the view of his previous travel trainer.
26. The Council did not change its decision. It said the travel training company had said Mr C was able to travel by bus, and travelling independently was a target in his EHC plan.
27. Ms B complained again, saying Mr C’s needs were too severe for him to navigate his journey to college on his own.
28. The Council, again, did not change its decision. It said:
• Although Mr C’s needs were severe and lifelong, his EHC plan aimed to develop his independence. In the Council’s view, travel training was the best way to achieve that.
• The travel training company had said that, although Mr C had only been ‘signed off’ for a walking route, his training had included bus travel, which he “did seem to manage”.
• There was no medical evidence to suggest Mr C could not travel by bus.
29. Shortly after this, Mr C’s speech therapist sent the Council a letter, which listed various reasons why, in the therapist’s view, Mr C was unable to travel independently on the bus. These were related to his inability to ask for help, or to understand basic things over the course of a journey.
30. The Council discussed Mr C’s case with the travel training company again. They said Mr C’s needs would not prevent him being trained, as there were multiple ways to support him to overcome his difficulties. They also said they had clients with more severe needs than Mr C who were undertaking training.
31. The Council wrote to Ms B a final time, and said that, despite what Mr C’s speech therapist had said, travel training was a suitable offer for his needs, which meant the Council had met its transport duties to him.
32. The Council also said:
• The speech therapist’s letter outlined Mr C’s difficulties – which were not news to the Council – but did not suggest any ways of helping him overcome them.
• Its decision was supported by the travel training company, which had suggested ways of Mr C overcoming his difficulties.
• Mr C’s EHC plan said he should be working towards independence and should be building his confidence on public transport.
33. Ms B was dissatisfied with the Council’s responses and approached the Ombudsman.

My findings

34. The Ombudsman can only question a council’s decision if there were clear procedural errors which undermined its decision-making.
35. In Mr C’s case:
• There was a thorough consideration of the issue, including information from the travel training company and Mr C’s EHC plan.
• The Council took Ms B’s views into account and considered the points she raised, even if it did not agree with her.
• The Council considered new medical evidence when it was provided.
• The decision was explained in detail, with reference to the Council’s SEN transport policy.
• The decision appears consistent with the policy.
• Although Ms B disagrees with the Council’s conclusions, they were not obviously perverse or unreasonable. They were consistent with the evidence the Council referred to.
36. Consequently, I have identified no procedural fault in the Council’s in investigation, which means I cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

37. The Council was not at fault for refusing Ms B’s application for travel support.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman