Ollie Persey and Alex Temple of the Garden Court Education Law Team, instructed by Rachael Smurthwaite of Irwin Mitchell, acted for the successful Claimant in TYC (by his litigation friend and mother, KVD) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWHC 623 (Admin).
Following an expedited hearing, the High Court has quashed Birmingham City Council’s (‘BCC’) ‘irrational’ decision to award a disabled student the cash equivalent of a bus pass, which was a significant downgrade of their previous package of being transported to school in a minibus with an escort.
The High Court also issued a mandatory order requiring reconsideration of the Claimant’s home-to-school transport application within 14 days.
Unlike children 16 and under, local authorities have discretion to set their own policies in considering home-to-school transport applications for those aged 17 and over, rather than determining them with reference to statutory criteria. BCC’s policy was that it would normally expect parents to facilitate transport, even for disabled students.
However, the Claimant’s mother in this case worked as a carer, which involved shifts when the Claimant was due to go to school. BCC’s refusal caused her to reduce her hours and work weekends. This was not sustainable and, as a single parent and sole-breadwinner in the family, the Claimant’s mother was facing the prospect of giving up her work and being pushed into financial distress.
These circumstances were provided to BCC in the Claimant’s application for transport. However, despite this and evidence of significant risk to the Claimant of travelling alone, he was awarded the cash equivalent of a bus pass. Since the package was put in place, the Claimant’s mental health and attendance at school substantially deteriorated and the school intervened to provide transport out of its own budget.
BCC invoked its financial crisis in defending the claim. However, that did not change the requirement for a local authority to carefully consider a Claimant’s specific circumstances.
In quashing the decision, the High Court (at para 17) affirmed that local authorities “should not have a blanket policy of never providing discretionary travel and must properly consider and engage with the reasons given by a parent as to why they consider that their child’s particular circumstances are exceptional and justify an award of travel support to school”.
In particular, the High Court at para 28 noted that the Claimant’s mother had changed her working patterns and asked others to help, but the Claimant’s attendance had still sharply declined since transport was withdrawn. It noted that the answer to a transport application “is not a binary choice” and the Defendant had not considered whether it should grant part of the Claimant’s application.
The High Court’s judgment is a rare post-16 home-to-school transport judicial review to reach a final hearing. It provides important guidance to local authorities that they must carefully consider each application on its circumstances based on the evidence before them.
The Defendant’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the High Court with the Claimant awarded their reasonable costs of the claim in full.
