Council expected an 8-year-old with special needs to walk 3 miles to school. Ombudsman found the council failed to consider his needs.
The council didn’t consider the boy’s needs despite having evidence about his condition. The boy, Child X, had received free transport before age eight, and his father requested it to continue. Because of this denial, he missed school daily or was late by about 35 minutes. The council claimed his plan lacked physical mobility issues.
The law states they must consider walking barriers, including sensory and behavioral issues. The council also failed to consider family issues, such as the parents’ work commitments and distance problems. Child X attends a special school two to three miles from home. The family also has another child attending a distant school, with the father working early. Consequently, the mother couldn’t manage both children’s commutes.
The father appealed, providing the boy’s diagnoses as evidence. The special school supported him, mentioning behavior and sensory reactions in their letter. These factors made the child’s behavior unpredictable, underscoring his need for the special school. Nevertheless, the council refused the appeal, believing he could walk safely. The council didn’t view different schools as an exceptional circumstance.
The father escalated the issue, reiterating his child was non-verbal and highlighting his incontinence, plus sensory and behavioral issues. He mentioned his child’s refusal of long walks and resultant tantrums. With only one parent available to assist, he argued one person could not get both kids to their schools on time. Again, the council refused the appeal.
The report stated the council must assess transport eligibility on a case-by-case basis, accounting for physical ability and health and safety, including SEN, disability, and mobility. The legal transport test centers around walking ability, not vehicle travel. Ealing Council failed this test and is therefore at fault.
The council focused solely on physical ability, neglecting sensory and behavior considerations. The family provided clear reasons for needing transport: one parent worked, the children attended different schools, and one child would miss part of the day. The council did not demonstrate any consideration of these factors.
Ealing Council must apologize to the father and pay £250 for the frustration caused. They must also reassess the transport application. After reassessment, he was found eligible. The council must now pay for the missed transport. Furthermore, the council must remind officers to consider all relevant data and record their decision-making process.
Applications based on SEN, disability, or mobility must equally include health, safety, sensory, and behavior aspects. Decisions must not solely rely on physical mobility. Ealing Council apologized and compensated the family.
A council spokesperson sincerely apologized for the mistake, emphasizing that supporting people with needs is a top priority. Following the decision, they held another appeal panel, which found the family met requirements due to the child’s sensory issues. The council has apologized, provided compensation, and implemented new training on transport laws.