Skip to content

Agenda item

Home to School Transport Appeals

Report of the Executive Director, People Services

Minutes:

6.1

In attendance were the appellant, the appellant’s representative and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

 

 

6.2

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

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted reports and commented upon two cases where the parent had appealed against the administrative decisions made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant home to school travel bus passes (Case Nos.ST/01 and ST/02).

 

 

6.4

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 requests for home to school travel passes had been refused at Stage 1.

 

 

6.5

The appellant explained to the Committee the reasons for the requests for home to school travel passes for her two children. She stated that she had not wanted to move her child due to the disruption caused by the family situation in previous years. The child had thrived at the current school, but in addition to the family’s low income status, no children’s support payments had been paid by the children’s father.

 

 

6.6

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Andy Tierney stated that the appellant had not subsequently requested a move to a school nearer her home as there had been no mid-term transfers. If the appellant had put Forge Valley down as her first choice, then it was likely that the child would have originally found a place at that school. In addition to this, if the appellant had kept the child on the waiting list, a place would have been found in subsequent years. If this was not the case, a travel pass would have been issued for the current school as long as the child was on the waiting list for Forge Valley or one of the other two qualifying schools. Mr Tierney stated that, under the current Home to School policy, it was not possible for officers to exercise any discretion in these two cases as it was outside their remit.

 

 

6.7

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

 

 

6.8

RESOLVED: That the appeals be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional education, family and medical circumstances demonstrated (Case Nos.ST/01 and ST/02).