Skip to content

Agenda item

Home to School Transport Appeals

Report of the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families

Minutes:

6.1

Verbal Appeal – KE/EC01

 

 

6.1.1

In attendance were the appellant and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

 

 

6.1.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

 

 

6.1.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parent had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.KE/01).

 

 

6.1.4

Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

 

 

6.1.5

The appellant explained to the Committee that she had very little understanding of the English language and had requested an interpreter interpreter from a third party organisation but unfortunately one had not been provided.  The Chair asked if she would prefer that the case be deferred until the next meeting when an interpreter would be provided to help her explain the reasons for her request for a home to school travel pass.  She agreed to this and was informed that a letter would be sent to her giving a new time and date for the hearing.

 

 

6.2

Verbal Appeal – KE/LO02

 

 

6.2.1

In attendance were the appellants and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

 

 

6.2.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

 

 

6.2.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parents had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.KE/LO02).

 

 

6.2.4

Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

 

 

6.2.5

The appellants explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for their child.

 

 

6.2.6

In response to questions raised by Members, the appellants stated that their older son had been bullied in the local area and as a result of this, he was given a place at King Edward VII School, away from those who had bullied him.  The appellants also stated that their only choice was King Edward VII on transfer to secondary school for  their younger son and was granted a place there under the sibling category   Due to the fact that staff at his primary school  had taken care of him, he had not been subjected to the same amount of bullying as his older brother.  The Committee also noted that the family have been trying to be rehoused away from the area, but have so far been unsuccessful.

 

 

6.2.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellants left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

 

 

6.2.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal be not upheld on the grounds that there are no exceptional circumstances demonstrated, and having regard to the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy, the school that the pupil is requesting a pass for is not one of the three qualifying schools.

 

 

6.3

Verbal Appeal PA/AC02

 

 

6.3.1

In attendance were the appellant and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

 

 

6.3.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

 

 

6.3.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parents had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.PA/AC02)

 

 

6.3.4

Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

 

 

6.3.5

The appellant explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for his daughter.

 

 

6.3.6

In response to questions from Members, the appellant stated that, due to the anxieties daughter faces on a daily basis, she was receiving support from CAMHS and MAST to help her deal with this.  The appellant submitted further evidence to show that his daughter was receiving such support.

 

 

6.3.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellant left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider all the evidence.

 

 

6.3.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional medical and family circumstances in the case (Case No. PA/AC02).

 

 

6.4

Verbal Appeal – TA01

 

 

6.4.1

In attendance were the appellants and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

 

 

6.4.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

 

 

6.4.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parents had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.TA01).

 

 

6.4.4

Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

 

 

6.4.5

The appellant explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for his son.

 

 

6.4.6

In response to questions from Members, the appellant stated that due to bullying and the school’s failure to address this, it been agreed that a managed move for his child be arranged between his previous school and the school he now attends.  He added that his child has close friends at school and has now settled.  The appellant stated that he could, if required, produce police incident records, hospital records and details of the managed moved.

 

 

6.4.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellant left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

 

 

6.4.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal be deferred until the applicant has provided further information regarding the managed move between the previous and current schools to the Executive Director (Case No.TA01).

 

 

6.5

Verbal Appeals – WE01 and WE02

 

 

6.5.1

In attendance were the appellants and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

 

 

6.5.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

 

 

6.5.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted reports and commented upon cases where the parents had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus passes (Case No.WE01 and WE02).

 

 

6.5.4

Julie Pryor explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Ms. Pryor informed the Committee of the reasons why the requests for home to school travel passes had been refused at Stage 1.

 

 

6.5.5

The appellants explained to the Committee the reasons for the requests for home to school travel passes for her children.

 

 

6.5.6

In response to questions from Members, the appellants stated that they travel over six miles every day to take the children to school and also the fact that their youngest child now attends the attached Nursery.   They also stated that they had tried, but failed to add their children’s names onto the waiting lists of schools in their local area.

 

 

6.5.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellant left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

 

 

6.5.8

RESOLVED: That the appeals be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional educational circumstances in the cases, but requested that you provide proof of address and show that you have gone through the correct procedure in applying for local schools (Case Nos.WE01 and WE02).

 

 

6.6

Written Appeals – KE/LO03 and KE/LO04

 

 

6.6.1

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted reports and commented upon two cases where parents had appealed against the administrative decisions made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant home to school travel bus passes.

 

 

6.6.2

The Committee gave consideration to all the supporting information and evidence provided by the pupils’ parents and, arising therefrom, it was:-

 

 

6.6.3

RESOLVED: That the appeals be not upheld on the grounds that there are no exceptional circumstances demonstrated, and having regard to the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy, the school that the pupils are requesting passes for are not one of their three qualifying  schools (Case Nos.KE/LO03 and KE/LO04).

 

 

 

(NOTE:  In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 26 of the Council’s Constitution and the provisions of Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Chair decided that Case Nos. KE/LO03 and KE/LO04 be considered as a matter of urgency in order for the request to be considered at the earliest possible opportunity although it had not been possible to give five clear days’ notice that the requests were to be considered).