A west London council told the parents of a boy with sensory and behavioural needs it was safe and reasonable for them to walk three miles to school, refusing to continue providing transport.

Ealing Council applied 'incorrect tests' in denying a child with additional needs transport to and from school, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

The council failed to consider the eight-year-old child's sensory and behavioural needs, despite being provided evidence evidence, after withdrawing their transport allocation.

The child, known as Child X, had received free home to school support from the council due to the nature of his additional needs until aged eight, and his father, known as Mr X, had requested an extension.

But their refusal led to the child missing around 35 minutes of the school day, every day. The council rejected the application on the grounds that the child's EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan) 'did not detail any physical mobility issues'.

However, the relevant law and guidance requires local authorities to consider sensory and behavioural barriers to walking, something Ealing Council failed to do.

Additionally, the council failed to consider the family's 'individual circumstances'.

Alongside evidence of the child's additional needs, the family explained to the council that they could not accompany the child to school, due to work commitments and distance.

Child X attends a special school, between two and three miles from home. The family also have a second child who attends a mainstream school over three miles away.

With the father commuting to work early in the morning, the child's mother could not balance the distances in good time whilst managing the needs of Child X.

Mr X appealed the council's decision, providing evidence in support of his child's diagnoses alongside a supporting letter from the special school.

The school said: "Many children at the special school had difficulties with challenging behaviour and sensory reactions which could make their behaviour unpredictable and cause distress.

Mr X's child could not attend their sibling's school as they needed a special school."

The council refused the appeal on the same grounds as before, arguing Mr X's child could walk to their school in 'reasonable safety'. Ealing Council did not consider children attending different schools an exceptional circumstance.

Mr X then escalated his appeal, detailing that his child was non-verbal, had incontinence and behavioural and sensory issues.

He added that his child 'would only walk short distances and then refuse to walk and have tantrums'.

Mr X explained there was only one parent who could help with travel to school, and that it was not possible for one person to get both children to their schools on time.

The council refused the appeal on the same grounds as before.

The ombudsman's report stated that legal guidance outlines that if a child has SEN or a disability, the council needs 'to assess eligibility on a case-by-case basis.

The assessment should take account of the child's physical ability to walk to school and any health and safety issues related to their SEN, disability or mobility problems'.

The legal test for assessing transport on SEN/disability/mobility grounds is a walking test, not whether they can travel in a vehicle. Ealing Council did not do undertake this test, and was therefore at fault.

The council was also found at fault for its 'focus' on physical mobility problems, despite law and guidance requiring it to consider sensory and behavioural needs.

The ombudsman said: "The family put forward reasons why one parent had to work, why the children had to attend different types of school, and that one child would miss a portion of the school day.

"The decision letter does not show how these matters were considered; it just refers to the general presumption but does not explain why the panel was not minded to make an exception in this case.

"The above faults cast doubt on the decision reached."

Ealing Council must apologise to Mr X for faults identified by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

It must also pay a remedial sum of £250 for frustration caused. It was told to carry out a fresh process of the child's application for home to school transport, which has subsequently been done and found he is eligible.

The council must therefore make additional payments for the missed transport.

The council must 'remind' officers to consider all evidence when handling transport appeals and 'properly record' how a decision was reached.

Council officers must be reminded that applications on SEN/disability/mobility grounds must consider health, safety, sensory and behavioural difficulties and not just physical mobility problems when deciding if a child is able to walk to school.

A spokesperson for Ealing Council said: "We sincerely apologise for the fault in the way we conducted this appeal. Supporting residents with extra needs is a top priority for us.

"Since the ombudsman's decision, we have held another stage 2 complaint appeal panel about this case, which found that the family met the necessary eligibility criteria due to the child's significant sensory difficulties. We have apologised to the family and compensated them for our mistake.

"To ensure it does not happen again, we have provided further training on the relevant laws to our team."