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.

This is the problem with making assumptions: they are often wrong.

Many people have assumed I am on benefits, I'm not.

You have assumed that the school is local and mainstream. You clearly have not heard of autism resource provision, and other specialist provision, that is within mainstream schools. There are also many children with high levels of needs in mainstream with 1:1 support, due to a lack of specialist school places.

Possibly, but some primary schools have more provision for children with disabilities than others.

It’s not relevant. The school she was at with her siblings stated that it could not meet her needs.

She has now been allocated this school which states it can meet her needs.

Whether her siblings can go to this school or not is irrelevant legally to the transport issue. I am sure if this school did have space for the other children also the OP would take them all there - she even specifically stated she had asked the school that question - given she’s already taking all of them to school now, but LAs do not work in pragmatic terms, they determine things per the law, and the law here is clear.

The LA is required to provide transport for her disabled DD to the school named on her EHCP because her DD cannot walk there. Her DD has a blue badge so clearly has significant disabilities and can’t walk there. The other children are not relevant to the legal obligation to provide transport for the disabled child because the OP could be a parent who is disabled herself or has no car or the school allocated could be over an hour away or inaccessible by public transport. That is why these provisions in the law exist. As it happens, the OP has done everything she can to get her DD there herself as well as taking her other children to school and therefore fulfil the LA’s legal obligation for it but she cannot without her DD not receiving a full time education which is also mandated by the law. Not unless she develops some kind of teleportation device.

The law states that the LA must get her DD to the school she is allocated. The end. Your views on it are not relevant.

You had specifically stated that you work, despite all of this, so everyone should be applauding you for what you have managed to do, to juggle work and the needs of a disabled child and caring for other children as well.

Idiotic people clearly didn’t bother to read the thread before posting their ignorant and discriminatory bile. It’s not your fault that some posters are too lazy or stupid to be able to read what has already been said.

Well the first school said they couldnt meet her childs, so i assume the second has agreed it can for whatever reason ,so.its not really Op ,s choice.

Make a complaint if you cannot appeal. You’re right and it should be upheld. If they don’t, take it to the Ombudsman. Speaking as somebody who has investigated many such complaints.

Quite apart from all the legal information others have posted, this is EXACTLY what our tax money should be covering. I really wish our tax money was being well spent in supporting the needs of vulnerable people (like ensuring a child with additional needs can get a full education like everyone else). In the grand scheme of things a payment like this is peanuts but it's not to the OP and it's not to her child.

I can only agree how offensive some of these posts have been.

Like the op and her DC don’t already have enough disadvantage in life.

I didn't realise the extent of the ableism on this site until I posted this. The most offensive have been deleted, so you aren't even seeing the worst here.

Amen.

That's disappointing, I know mumsnet has to create ad revenue, so there is an incentive there to keep threads up. But ignoring your request when you've asked for it to be taken down, because of the offensive, ableist posts is a bit gross, no better word for it. mnhq used to pride itself on the whole "in the spirit" thing, not making lives harder for parents, especially those with disabilities.

Its worth checking op how long they hold the gate open. Most schools its 10 -15 mins, they can't possibly manage every single child turning up at exactly bang on 8.45 etc.

I had a friend in a very similar situation to you. Both schools were open gate from 8 35 to 8.50. She used to drive to SEN DCs school and be waiting for the gate to open. By 8.37 she would be back in her car and would drive 10 mins to other DC school, drop them at 8.48 before the gate closed. It was a rush but cheaper than breakfast club.

Cynically, I think you are right and it is all down to ad revenue. It wouldn't be too much to ask that those who post obviously ablist or racist posters received a temporary ban as a minimum, but that doesn't happen. The racism I have seen from some posters, who have continued to post, is quite frankly shocking.

My SEN DS went to a different school to his DD. I didn’t want to move her as her school was better. Luckily both schools were within a 5 min walk from each other as no one ever mentioned transport until senior school as that is 3 miles away.

every morning was a struggle to get them there but I think pick up time would have been worse if my DH didn’t finish work at 2 pm and could collect DD. Once I learned to drive I’d drop him at her school, go to DS school then back to pick them both up.

is weird as he got transport year 7-11 in senior school then for college but didn’t get transport for years 12-14 so I had to pay for it myself, luckily the school gave him a bursary that covered it.

I have no advice really but wanted to wish you good luck.

Thank you to @Eridian and others who provided useful advice here. In short, I was correct that we are entitled to transport, and following legal advice here, it has been granted. It's only a tiny amount (mileage but not childcare), but it feels like more of a symbolic win.

To those who posted rude and ableist comments, I hope that you can reflect on what makes you so hateful, and how fortunate you are to not understand the difficulties that a parent of a SEN child faces in this country.

Fantastic well done @Senmater, I am so pleased you were able to secure some mileage and that @Eridian and others' expertise helped.

From how you've handled this tricky thread I think your children have a great advocate.

Well done.

That is great news. What a relief for you that it is resolved. And yes, shame on the hateful posters who have nothing better to do than attack the parents of disabled children.

If the council and school have both agreed a later start time then is that not a reasonable compromise?

I think if they've offered a reasonable adjustment then you'll have to accept it, the fact you wanted something different doesn't mean they have to change.

If the later start time causes problems at school eg falling behind or being unsettled then the school could put that in writing & maybe then push for an alternative.

You are a bit late to this, but in short the later start was a red herring in all of this. The council is legally obliged to provide transport, and a later start does not negate that need.

The class teacher has no agreed a later start, and actually their view is the most important. They have, quite understandably, said that punctuality is very important and it would be very disruptive for my child to be late, for both themselves and the rest of the class.

No. Every child is entitled to full time education. Expecting a disabled child not to have the same start time as everyone else would be discriminatory.

Exactly, Eridian highlighted this as well.

Perhaps don’t comment on threads when you: a) have no knowledge about the legal position and the question that was asked so have nothing of value to add to the discussion; and b) haven’t even bothered reading the thread before you do so.