M & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review

Under section 508B of the Education Act 1996, a local authority need not ordinarily provide transport from an eligible child’s front door to school. “Home to school travel arrangements” may relate to only part of the journey, provided the arrangements are suitable for facilitating attendance. Suitability concerns both the mode and extent of the arrangements and depends on the child’s abilities and disabilities, the parent’s position, and what can reasonably be expected of them. In an appropriate case, the authority may designate a reasonable pick-up point and impose it without parental consent. The authority must nevertheless exercise its judgment lawfully and ensure that the arrangements are suitable in the individual circumstances.

The claimants, two children with special educational needs, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Hounslow’s approach to travel assistance under section 508B of the Education Act 1996. Although door-to-door transport had been provided by concession, the Council maintained that it could in an appropriate case arrange transport from a reasonable pick-up point and impose that arrangement if the parents acted unreasonably in refusing consent.

The Council argued that the claim was academic and that the claimants should instead approach the Secretary of State under section 497. The court rejected those objections and considered whether section 508B required transport from home in every case and whether a non-home pick-up point could be imposed without parental consent.

The application for judicial review failed.

1. Alternative remedy. The possibility of an application to the Secretary of State under section 497 of the Education Act 1996 did not make judicial review inappropriate. The Secretary of State had adopted a firm view on the legal issues, the questions were matters of statutory interpretation for the court, and an authoritative ruling had wider practical significance.
2. Meaning of section 508B. The duty is to make such travel arrangements as the authority considers necessary to secure suitable home-to-school travel arrangements. Reading subsection (1) with the definition in subsection (3), the arrangements must relate to travel in both directions between home and the relevant educational establishment, but need not cover the whole distance from the front door to the school gate.
3. Suitability. Suitability governs both the mode and the extent of the arrangements. It is a judgment for the local authority, taking account of the particular child’s abilities and disabilities, the parent’s position, and what can reasonably be expected of them. The authority must act lawfully when deciding whether a reasonable walk to a designated pick-up point is suitable.
4. Pick-up points and parental consent. Section 508B permits, in an appropriate case, transport from a reasonable pick-up point other than the child’s home, even where the parents do not consent. Subsection (5), concerning arrangements made voluntarily by a parent, does not require the authority to provide arrangements for the entire journey. The authority’s arrangements may cover only the transport from the pick-up point to school, with suitability including whether it is reasonable to expect the parent to take the child to that point.
5. The court’s interpretation was supported by section 508C, section 444 and the statutory predecessor authorities, including Devon County Council v George [1989] 1 AC 573 and Surrey County Council v Ministry of Education [1953] 1 WLR 516. Declaratory relief was likely unnecessary.