School transpor sutiability / appeal

bestpud

kissmeimposh wrote: »

The school allocation was accepted and not appealled, based in significant part on the fact that transport would be arranged. The notion of being forced to send a young child (or even older one, in many cases) alone with a driver is unpalatable. Bus or group taxis or with an escort would more than likely be acceptable, but not the forced method of travelling alone. There is no other situation in life when a child is forced to spend time alone with a stranger.
On the other hand, where there is no viable solution and the legal obligation is on the Council to provide transport, why should the Council be entitled to save the expense of a bus or driver or escort just because parents feel that their child would be put in harms way by travelling alone? If a parent sends a young child alone in a taxi to a birthday party, or a sporting event, even if the driver has a CRB certification, many of the parents would likely inform social services. It is not unreasonable for parents not to accept being forced to send the child alone to school. If the parent is forced by circumstance to be the escort and driver, then why shouldn't the Council compensate the parent at least for providing one of those roles if not also both? Why should the Council 'benefit' by giving rise to and exasserbating the legitimate concerns of parents who reasonably want to ensure the safety of their child?[/quote]

I can see your point about the taxi but not your points about getting the council to pay you for taking your child yourself tbh.

At the end of the day, if the council can prove they have provided 'suitable' and 'adequate' transport for your child, then they are under no obligation to pay you anything.

It seems this goes on in other areas, and indeed works well, so I'm thinking you are unlikely to sway this decision tbh.

I don't like it at all. As a policy, I think it stinks tbh. But I would not expect to be paid for choosing an alternate way of getting my child to school.

I would, however, ask if I could maybe get a petrol allowance, in light of the fact they are no longer paying for the taxi.

Ultimately, you are going to have to decide whether the taxi is an option at all for you. It is always easier to make requests, or complain, when you are crystal clear about the outcome you would like and why.

kissmeimposh

Thanks bestpud and everyone else. It seems the Council and us will be at loggerheads about this and that it is going to be necessary to have others judge the Council and not allow the Council to make the final decision about this case or about itself. The question now is whether to do this through the media or through the legal system where the Council will be asked to bear the cost of that as well.

bestpud

Have you tried a google search to see if anyone else has fought this before?

Or how about the CAB as a first port of call?

sad_dog_lady

local gov ombudsman..... phone and ask.....it cant hurt

silvercar

If I was you, the first point to investigate is whether there will be other children being taken in the same taxi. If there are other children being collected you could always make the decision to take your child yourself to the next pick up, so he or she is not travelling alone.

It is often the case that what starts as a single child travelling froma n area to a school ends up being a couple more children and then a minibus.

In my area, drivers and/ or escorts would go into school and hand over the children to a teacher.

The question now is whether to do this through the media

Be very, very careful. In my area a group of parents got the media involved in home to school transport issue that ended with the council revamping their policy to the detriment of a lot of families. Previously the council had had a policy that was more generous than the government requirement, in order to satisfy this group of parents and quell the media attention and keep to a budget, the revamped policy took transport away from quite a large group of parents.

....through the legal system where the Council will be asked to bear the cost of that as well.

Only if you win...

Becles

kissmeimposh wrote: »

The Council or the molester him/her-self may not know that they are prone to a crime until the opportunity arises. You say you would be happy to send your children, but this isn't a question of that; here we are talking about sending one small child alone and not with siblings.

My children are different ages so there have been times when they have travelled to school alone. I would have sent one child alone in a taxi approved by the council.

That comment, with respect, is ignorant of the fact and the law that in this case it is a legal duty of the Council to provide adequate and suitable transport - it is not a question of good fortune and blessings have absolutely nothing to do with this. It is quite literally a right.

The Council have provided what they deem to be adequate transport and therefore fulfilled their legal duty. The problem has arisen because you have objected to their offer of transport.

I cannot believe the real reasons are as you describe, and if they are then I would urge you to take legal advice to help determine if you and your child are victims of discrimination.

I am quite hurt to be accused of being a liar on this forum. If you read my past posts, you will see that I have mentioned the issue of the school bus in previous posts.

I did appeal the decision and involved my MP, but unfortunately we were unable to overturn the decision of the LEA. They deem that even though he has been through the Catholic feeder school and a transition period with the secondary school and joined in Catholic church activities, it is not his nearest suitable school as we are Christian and haven't been baptised into the Catholic church.

My son was left with the choice of going to LEA's choice of nearest suitable school or making his way to the Catholic school alone by public transport. He chose the Catholic school as he doesn't know anybody at the other school.

I can see the similarities with your case as the LEA have provided what they deem to be suitable transport for your child, and you have chosen not to accept that.

silvercar

I did appeal the decision and involved my MP, but unfortunately we were unable to overturn the decision of the LEA. They deem that even though he has been through the Catholic feeder school and a transition period with the secondary school and joined in Catholic church activities, it is not his nearest suitable school as we are Christian and haven't been baptised into the Catholic church.

For what its worth, it would be the same in my area. You only get transport to state faith schools that are not your nearest suitable school if you are demonstrabley of that faith. Otherwise it is deemed that you are choosing that school for reasons that are not 100% totally because it is a school of your chosen faith, and although the school may offer a place you are not entitled to transport. You can sometimes make an arrangement to pay for a place on the school bus if there are spare places in my area.

bestpud

Becles wrote: »

The Council have provided what they deem to be adequate transport and therefore fulfilled their legal duty. The problem has arisen because you have objected to their offer of transport.

The faith school transport is the same here too so I can vouch for that.

Re the OPs transport situation though:

Can we actually assume the council decision is correct, or indeed, lawful.

I don't know whether this one is or not tbh but I would be wary of assuming they have fulfilled their legal duty, just because they say they have.

We only have to look at the number of parking appeals to see they don't always check their facts thoroughly and often try to fudge their responsibilities!

Becles

silvercar wrote: »

For what its worth, it would be the same in my area. You only get transport to state faith schools that are not your nearest suitable school if you are demonstrabley of that faith. Otherwise it is deemed that you are choosing that school for reasons that are not 100% totally because it is a school of your chosen faith, and although the school may offer a place you are not entitled to transport. You can sometimes make an arrangement to pay for a place on the school bus if there are spare places in my area.

I could understand that if I'd chosen the Catholic secondary school on a whime after he'd been in a non-religious primary school. It just seemed harsh when he's been in feeder school since 3 and joined in all the Church activities and the transition period, so continuity in his education is important to us.

I did ask if I could pay for him to go on the school bus, but some dragon at the LEA bit my head off as apparantly that is discrimination against low income families

silvercar

Can we actually assume the council decision is correct, or indeed, lawful.

I don't know whether this one is or not tbh but I would be wary of assuming they have fulfilled their legal duty, just because they say they have.

If they provide a driver who is enhanced-CRB cleared and trained for the role, the council can't really do anymore, as far as the driver is concerned. I accept that people won't be on the offenders register until caught, but that applies to all walks of life - someone isn't a murderer until they kill someone.

So the question is whether it is "suitable" to allow one CRB checked individual to take children to school ie a journey of say 20-30 minutes where the child will be met at each end.

I don't know whether having another stranger in the car would make it more acceptable. Round here, the contract for the school runs would go out and it would be the taxi company's job to find an escort (obviously they would be CRB checked). Usually, though not always, the escort will be someone known to one of the taxi firm's drivers. Whether a parent would feel happier entrusting their child to two CRB checked strangers who know each other rather than one, I couldn't say. The council could say driver + escort = "suitable". Whether a parent would find it suitable or not is upto the individual.

(Another point, the escort could of course be male. We think of a male driver + female escort, this won't necessarily be the case, and a parent wouldn't be able to demand that.)