To think the council isn't allowed to deny providing transport on the basis that my child can be late every day if I provide it?

[Senmater]

My DD is in primary school and has an EHCP, as well as a blue badge. She goes to a different primary school to her siblings, as her siblings' primary could not meet her needs (they formally refused her, then appealed against being named when the council tried to name them regardless). I tried to move her siblings (also primary )to her school but there is no space. Both schools start at exactly the same time.
I am putting her siblings in breakfast club daily, so that I can get everyone to school on time. My DD would not cope in breakfast club/breakfast club would not cope with her.
I asked the council for a transport personal budget to cover this cost, which is far cheaper than a taxi to take my DD to school. I have said that if they refuse this on principle, we would accept a taxi, but this is a far less efficient use of funds as it would be a lot more expensive.
The council have refused on the basis that my DD could be late everyday, and apparently her school says that is fine. The school have never told me this, in fact I have been told the exact opposite by the class teacher.
As she has autism, being late and changing her routine would cause her a great deal of distress. I also view her learning as important and do not consider it reasonable that she misses the first part of school everyday.
Can anyone advise on the legal basis here? Siblings are too young to travel independently to school (one is in infants), and my DD has a blue badge and complex needs and therefore cannot travel independently.

I think she would be eligible for funding for transport to school (which I believe an option is you taking her). Look here:

https://www.gov.uk/help-home-school-transport

What they don’t tell you, is that council have a duty of care to provide taxi provision to the school that best meets her needs and NOT in the catchment area that’s closest to you. So keep pushing because it’s a legal obligation for your daughter. Doesn’t matter if school is 10 miles away or more, if it’s the closest school that best meets her needs they must provide the funding.

The council has a duty to provide transport in the case of Sen, I am wondering if anyone has insight into the legal basis here.

You are posting in AIBU - you are less likely to get legal advice here. Repost in education flagging legal advice needed. There are some great professionals to advise you from a legal perspective.

I have asked for the thread to be deleted now that I have had the legal advise. The comments about benefits and showing bias against the disabled are not relevant or helpful.

I would say in any towns/cities the vast majority of secondary kids get themselves to school. It's either walkable, or there will be a variety of public transport options available.

Agree with every word of this!
My friends children have gone from failing to thriving now they are in schools that can meet their needs. The transformation is astonishing. But they have to each to to a different school in a different corner of the county.

The problem isn't parents asking for transport, it's that the system doesn't meet children's needs within their local schools

With respect, most of that is not relevant.

Per the Education Act, if the OP’s child has been allocated a school she cannot walk to the LA must provide transport for her.

She has a blue badge so cannot walk there.

The end.

There is no need for any of the rest of it. The law is clear. If this school is named on her EHCP and she can’t walk to it the LA is legally required to provide transport. Of course they’ll often try to wreck the parent’s health/ career by demanding the parent do it themselves, put unlawful “policies” in place about when they’ll provide transport which are illegal if they try to override the criteria in the law, or fail to tell the parent about what the law states.

The OP simply needs to tell the LA that her daughter — who is so disabled that she has a blue badge — clearly cannot walk to the allocated school and quote the Education Act requirements that specifically state the LA must provide transport for her daughter. The Education Act also states that all children must receive a full time education therefore the proposal that her DD arrives late every day is also unlawful.

I’m so sorry that you had to endure this and hope posters who clearly know nothing about this at all refrain in future from commenting on such threads. 💐

Absolutely this is not what DLA is for, and it's also not the parents' job to solve in isolation.

I think this is probably part of the LA's crackdown on home to school transport. It doesn't help that you are leading with asking for cash for childcare which doesn't fit the mould. I think you should apply for home to school transport, secure that first then offer to take DD yourself for a cost of x (breakfast club costs)m

It's possible that her home to school transport would be on a minibus or in a shared taxi and the additional cost of adding her to an existing run is much less than the daily cost of 2 lots of childcare. I think this is how DS got SEN transport - there was a taxi running past the end of our road with space in it. So ask for transport, not childcare money, and see where it goes.

It's not acceptable for her to be late every day because she is legally entitled to a full time education. It's against her interests to be missing the transition into school period with her peers. LA does not get to decide unilaterally that it's ok - but understand that they probably never thought it was ok or cared much either way. They are just trying to convince you, in any way that you might fall for, to cover this yourselves so that they don't have to. It's not about what is right or legal it's anything they can do to not spend the money. You go back in saying actually she has a right to this, and I know she has a right to it. And take the help now because it'll get harder as she gets older.

Do you receive pip or disability living allowance for your child? If so, then this payment could be used to pay for breakfast club on the basis that it allows your child to get to school daily on time.

I think the distance needs to be 3+ miles for help to be given.

Also, different local authorities have different rules. So mine pays mileage to and from school, for two trips per day. Neighbouring LA pays literally half of that.

Read the thread before posting your ignorant nonsense.

I find it highly unlikely the school have agreed she can be late. I don't think you have a legal basis here. They've offered a taxi as is their legal duty. They don't have a legal duty to cover breakfast club fees. It would be logical if it saves them money, but common sense is pretty unheard of in LAs in my experience and I guess their hands are bound tbf.

ignore all the clueless people who have no idea.

just editing to add I've assumed they've offered a taxi?

Not if her DD has a blue badge, as the OP has stated.

She cannot walk to the allocated school named on her EHCP.

Therefore, legally, the LA must provide transport for her to get there, per the Education Act which has been in place for 30 years.

They are trying to make this the OP’s problem - that they have failed to provide sufficient local schools to enable all children to go to a school near their home which is appropriate for them - and it is not the OP’s problem at all.

The LA’s legal obligation is clearly set out in the Education Act in the sections that I specified in my first post on this thread, on page 1.

Because in certain circumstances the law says they must. Hth. Maybe it would help your friends to know too.

Is sentas still running?I couldn't find their website last time I tried.

I suggest you talk to your local SENDIASS. They should be able to support your claim or explain why it isn't feasible (I think it should be).

Sadly there are a huge number of clueless and ignorant people who appear to believe that attacking the parent of a disabled child is appropriate, with clearly not the faintest idea of the reality of what such parents have to deal with for years on end just to enforce their child’s basic legal right to go to school, which is set out not only in UK law but in an international law as a requirement for all countries in the world, many of whom are much, much poorer than the UK.

The posters who have posted disgusting comments here should go away and read about the harrowing stories of the distress and trauma caused to these children ignored by the UK state education system and the multiple studies showing that failing to provide appropriate education for them costs the state far MORE than it would to do so, in lost productivity, increased welfare dependency, lower tax revenues and higher justice and health costs resulting from this abject failure of the UK’s “Department for Education”.

Having a go at the OP, one of the victims of this complete failure of the UK’s Education Department to comply with UK law and international law, is completely unacceptable.

You think it's entitled for a disabled child to get their education and get to school on time? When I was at school there was a child who regularly came in late. It's disruptive to others

Because named provision/specialist provision is often at a distance, some parents wouldn’t be able to get their kids there is they were the only child, never mind balancing other children. There’s almost no provision out of hours for kids with additional support needs, so no breakfast club or after school care to help stagger drops offs and collections and they often can’t access mainstream childcare. It’s not the same as juggling two kids in mainstream school who can use wrap around provision.

I don't think anyone is saying that the council shouldn't fund transport (via whatever mechanism) to a school that's written into the EHCP, rather that the council has limited obligation to provide transport that works perfectly for the OP's circumstances. The OP doesn't get to say "i want transport at this time in this fashion to meet these exact circumstances". Also - round here our LA would bite your hand off if you asked for a transport budget and not a taxi.

Most people would expect DLA/PIP to be used to cover costs arising from whatever the OP needs to mitigate the above, including things like breakfast clubs (and free breakfast clubs are being rolled out in England). And taxpayers will get grumpy if they feel that the state is paying for a Motability car (not saying that's the case here but it is often), DLA/PIP, paid transport to and from school, and extra costs on top of that. It's not unreasonable for that to be questioned, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

It's not entitlement if it's a legal requirement.

It's the parents responsibility to get the children to school when they can choose the school, absolutely. When you have a disabled DC and have zero choice in where they're placed (if at all), or even a non-disabled DC who gets a school miles away, it becomes the LAs responsibility.

You are clearly ignorant of UK law, and international law, and economics.

I would suggest that your comment is the entitled one. As someone who pays a very large amount of tax, I’d far rather it was spent on providing appropriate education for all children per the law than spent on the increased healthcare costs, justice costs, welfare costs and lower tax revenues meaning my tax will rise even further in future which are the well-documented result of NOT providing appropriate education for all children.

Every £1 spent on education for disabled children has been shown to have a long-term benefit of £3 to the economy.

It’s not the OP’s fault that the state has failed to recognise this economic fact that it is a false economy not to provide an appropriate range of local schools catering to the different abilities and needs of children and tries to force them all, unsuccessfully, into an environment that’s completely inappropriate for many of them, hence it having to provide transport to schools further away.

I have worked in economics for the last 20 years, by the way.

Keep your ignorant comments to yourself in future.