High Court refuses permission for judicial review over home-to-college transport provision

In HUR, R (On the Application Of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2026] EWHC 1978 (Admin) (30 July 2026), Duncan Atkinson KC observed that the defendant's decision was not to refuse travel assistance, “but to adopt a different form of assistance for which there was support in the material available, with the important caveat that the decision would be kept under review”.

The claimant in the case was a disabled 23-year-old young person with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) that the Defendant is responsible for maintaining.

The claimant has complex needs, including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, visual difficulties, hemiparesis on his right side and a speech and language delay.

He also has an anxiety disorder and is under the care of the Defendant's Community Learning Disability Team.

The claim for judicial review concerned the claimant's home-to-college transport provision.

The judge noted: “The decision under challenge is identified by the claimant as the defendant's decision of 2 February 2026 at the outcome of a Stage 2 appeal which is characterised as the Defendant upholding the Stage 1 appeal declining to allocate the claimant direct home-to-college transport. The proper characterisation of 'the Decision' is itself one of the issues to be resolved.”

Outlining the factual context, the judge said the claimant started a placement at a Learning and Enterprise College in Bexley, on a 3 days-per-week basis, in September 2025.
At earlier stages of his education, the defendant had provided home-to-college transport via taxi.

In September 2025, the claimant's mother sought this form of transport provision for the claimant's attendance at the Learning and College in Bexley. The defendant declined this application.

In doing so, the defendant said: "In addition, [the Claimant] will be offered tailored independent travel training to help build his confidence and support his transition into adulthood. A member of our travel training team will be in contact shortly to arrange a review visit."

On 28 November 2025, the claimant's mother submitted a Stage 2 appeal. She emphasised that crowded buses triggered the claimant's anxiety and that he faced increasing hostility due to his habit of staring at people.

The material provided as part of the appeal included a letter from Dr John Carroll to the SEND assessment and review services, dated 30 September 2025.

Dr Carroll stressed the claimant's need for "substantial support and reasonable adjustments to cope with generalised anxiety disorder". He noted that anxiety was "marked before, during and after use of public transportation". He said: "having to use public transport for college is clearly having a deleterious impact on the claimant's mental state".

The decision in issue was the stage 2 appeal travel assistance decision of the appeal panel, set out in their letter dated 2 February 2026.

The letter stated at the outset that the Panel had taken account of the views of the claimant's mother, the medical evidence including that of Dr Carroll, the Claimant's EHCP, the annual review documentation, and the council's relevant policies.

The defendant's decision against that background was as follows: "The panel concluded that Independent Travel Training (ITT) alongside exploring the other sources of support highlighted above are the most suitable and proportionate form of support in line with:

• [claimant]'s EHCP Outcomes (particularly around independence and community travel)

• The national statutory guidance on post-16 transport

• The Royal Greenwich Travel Assistance Policy ITT will be tailored to [claimant]'s pace, with gradual exposure, safety planning, and support strategies for anxiety. The training team will work closely with you and with LECB staff to manage risks and build confidence".

The claimant advanced one ground, namely that the defendant did not conduct the careful and sensitive assessment required.

The judge said: “The claimant's position is that he is forced to attend College by bus. His family is becoming increasingly worried about him during long and crowded bus journeys, which can take up to 1hour 45 minutes.

“The defendant's position is that it has not refused home to college transport with the consequences just described. The defendant was not bound to accept at face value the opinion of Dr Carroll, who did not explain why he considered that the claimant could not travel at all by bus when there was also evidence that he could do so with his mother, and who did not identify the extent of his engagement with the claimant, allowing the assessment he set out. The defendant was entitled, by reference to the other material set out above, to give less weight to Dr Carroll and greater weight to the assessment of the College and the benefits of helping the claimant to become more independent, as he wished to be.”

Considering the decision under appeal, the judge said: “It is important to understand what the defendant had determined to be appropriate support for the claimant. The decision was to provide independent travel training, namely the provision (free of charge) of a qualified and experienced travel trainer who will come to the claimant's house in the morning and accompany him to College, and then accompany him from college to home at the end of the day, unless and until such time as he can travel independently. This was not, therefore, a refusal to support the claimant's travel.”

He continued: “The claimant asserts that the offer of independent travel training is "irrelevant". That is, however, the flaw in the claimant's approach. The training offered it is not irrelevant. Rather, it is the outcome of the exercise of the defendant's clear discretion under section 508F, Education Act 1996 and the applicable policy as how best to meet the claimant's need for travel assistance in getting to College.

“On the face of the decision in issue, the defendant recognised both its duty to provide support, and the claimant's challenges in relation to travel. The defendant considered the competing considerations, and did so by reference to reliable sources of information. It identified a solution which it considered appropriate. In so doing, and contrary to the claimant's submission, it was not imposing a burden on the claimant's mother, as the claimant would have an independent escort whilst he needed it and whilst building confidence.”

The judge observed that while the defendant was required to take account of Dr Carroll's concerns, it was not required to reach its determination “solely by reference to that view”.

Concluding the case and refusing permission to bring a judicial review claim, Duncan Atkinson KC said: “In my judgement, it is not arguable that the defendant's approach was either unlawful or irrational. There is no unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning so as to render procedural irrationality arguable in this case. In any event, if the defendant had addressed

Dr Carroll's view more fully in the decision letter, along the lines set out in paragraphs 30-31 above, the decision it would have reached would have been the same. This is relevant to the defendant's further submission that relief should be denied under s.31(3D) Senior Courts Act 1981. However, it is not necessary to determine that submission here.

“Rather, it is sufficient to determine the present application to conclude, as I have, that the claimant's one ground is not arguable once the proper import of the defendant's decision is appreciated. That decision was not to refuse travel assistance, but to adopt a different form of assistance for which there was support in the material available, with the important caveat that the decision would be kept under review. That caveat is important because it also shows the claimant to have an alternative remedy if the independent travel training proves to be unworkable.”

Lottie Winson