HUR, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich

Under section 508F of the Education Act 1996, a local authority has discretion to determine the form of necessary, free post-16 transport support. That discretion must be exercised in good faith and judiciously, following a sensitive and careful assessment based so far as possible on reliable evidence. Process rationality requires attention to mandatory relevant considerations and reasoning without logical errors or critical gaps. An authority may balance medical evidence against other reliable material, including an EHCP and college assessment. Accompanied independent travel training may satisfy the transport obligation where it is rationally supported and kept under review.

The claimant, a disabled 23-year-old with an Education, Health and Care Plan, sought judicial review of a Stage 2 travel-assistance decision concerning travel to college. The defendant had declined direct home-to-college taxi transport but offered independent travel training involving accompanied journeys by a qualified trainer, gradual reduction of support and review.

The claimant alleged that the defendant had failed to make a careful and sensitive assessment, particularly of psychiatric evidence concerning anxiety and the risks of crowded bus journeys, and had acted with process irrationality. The central issues were the proper characterisation of the decision and whether the offered support was a rational discharge of the travel-support obligation.

1. Disposition. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The decision was properly characterised as determining the form of travel assistance, rather than refusing assistance altogether.
2. Statutory framework. Section 508F of the Education Act 1996 required the authority to make such arrangements as it considered necessary for the claimant’s attendance at qualifying post-16 education, with necessary transport provided free of charge. The discretion was not pure. It had to be exercised in good faith and judiciously, as explained in JM v Staffordshire C C [2016] UKUT 0246 (AAC). The defendant accepted that it was obliged to support the claimant’s travel, but retained discretion as to the form of support.
3. Decision-making standard. The authority was required to make a sensitive and careful assessment based so far as possible on reliable information or evidence, applying R(S) v Education A15 (Waltham Forest) [2006] EWHC 3144 (Admin). Process rationality also required consideration of mandatory relevant considerations, exclusion of irrelevant considerations, and reasoning without logical errors or critical gaps, applying the approach described in R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin).
4. Application. The panel considered the claimant’s mother’s views, Dr Carroll’s evidence, the EHCP, the college’s annual review and the relevant policy. Dr Carroll’s opinion had to be considered, but it was not determinative. The authority could weigh it against reliable evidence that the claimant was developing trust in college staff, engaged in travel training and had identified independence goals. Dr Carroll had not addressed accompanied travel, which was central to the support offered.
5. Conclusion. The independent travel training involved a qualified professional accompanying the claimant on both journeys, with gradual reduction of support and continuing review. It was therefore a rational form of assistance and did not impose the alleged burden on the claimant’s mother. Any misunderstanding about the offer did not make the decision irrational. There was no unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning. The court noted, but did not determine, the defendant’s further submission under section 31(3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The review provision supplied an alternative remedy if the training proved unworkable.

This was a first-instance judicial review permission application. The judgment records an anonymity order made on 17 April 2026 and an earlier adjournment of the permission application to 21 July 2026. No appeal or judgment under appeal is stated.