Judicial review of Birmingham City Council's transport decision

Background

The High Court was tasked with reviewing a decision by Birmingham City Council concerning the home-to-school transport arrangements for TYC, a student with significant disabilities. The case was brought forward by TYC's mother, KVD, acting as his litigation friend. The decision under scrutiny was made on 24 August 2024, which involved the council's provision of a cash equivalent of a travel pass instead of direct transport services.

The Claimant's Circumstances

TYC, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan, attends a special school for pupils with autism. His conditions, including autistic spectrum disorder, learning disabilities, and physical impairments, necessitate adult assistance for travel. Previously, TYC was provided a minibus service funded by the council, but this was withdrawn when he turned 16, prompting the current legal challenge.

The Council's Decision

In June 2024, the council decided to offer TYC a cash equivalent of a travel pass, valuing £315, instead of reinstating the direct transport service. The council argued that TYC could be transported using a Motability car provided to his family, and that his mother could reasonably be expected to drive him to school.

Legal Framework

The case hinged on the interpretation of sections 509AA and 509AB of the Education Act 1996, which outline local authorities' obligations regarding transport for students of sixth form age. The council's policy expects parents to accompany their children unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise, and budgetary constraints are a significant consideration.

Arguments Presented

The claimant argued that the council's decision was irrational, failing to adequately consider the practicalities of KVD's situation as a single parent and sole breadwinner. The council countered that there was no statutory obligation to provide transport for students of TYC's age, and that parental work commitments alone did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Court's Analysis

The court found that the council did not adequately consider KVD's specific circumstances, particularly the impact on her employment and financial stability. The decision was deemed irrational as it failed to engage with the practical realities faced by the family, especially given TYC's significant needs and the lack of a support network.

Conclusion

The High Court quashed the council's decision, requiring a reassessment of TYC's transport needs. The judgment highlighted the necessity for local authorities to consider individual circumstances comprehensively and to avoid a blanket application of policy without due regard to specific facts.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.