HUR, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2026] EWHC 1978 (Admin)

[2026] EWHC 1978 (Admin)Case No AC-2026-LON-001768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 30/07/2026
Before
DUNCAN ATKINSON KCSITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
Between
THE KING on the application of HURClaimantROYAL BOROUGH OF GREENWICHDefendant
Ollie Persey (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for ClaimantPaul Greatorex (instructed by Royal Borough of Greenwich) for DefendantHearing Hearing dates: 21 July 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 30 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................DHCJ DUNCAN ATKINSON KC

DUNCAN ATKINSON KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

[1]The Claimant is 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.[2]This claim for judicial review concerns the Claimant’s home-to-college transport provision. The decision under challenge (hereafter ‘the Decision’), is identified by the Claimant as the Defendant’s decision of 2 February 2026 as 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.[3]As a preliminary matter, the Hon. Ms Justice Obi, by an order dated 17 April 2026, made an order granting anonymity to the Claimant, pursuant to CPR 39.2(4). That order continues to operate, and this judgment is drafted on that basis.[4]Mark Ockelton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, adjourned the application for permission to the hearing on 21 July 2026, but directed the service of skeleton arguments for both sides that supplement existing pleadings by which each side had set out their respective cases in detail. These skeleton arguments were supplemented by oral submissions for both sides at the hearing itself. In a number of respects these went beyond that which had already been put in writing, and this led me to reserve my decision to this judgment.

The factual context

[5]The Claimant started a placement at 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.”[6]The Claimant’s mother appealed that decision. That stage 1 appeal was rejected by the Defendant. In the Stage 1 Response, dated 19 November 2025, the Defendant stated:
“We acknowledge [the Claimant’s] complex needs and the difficulties he experiences with public transport. In recognition of this, we would like to offer Independent Travel Training as a supportive measure. This programme is designed to help young people with additional needs develop the skills and confidence to travel safely and independently. The training is tailored to each individual’s needs, and delivered by experienced staff who work closely with families and educational settings.”
[7]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. She also further emphasised the significant strain accompanying the Claimant on his journeys to and from college was having on her, as she was also an unpaid carer for her partner, who himself had serious mental health conditions.[8]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. This letter assumed a critical importance during the permission hearing, and it is right to deal with it in a little detail.[9]Dr Carroll is a consultant psychiatrist in learning disability. In his letter, he did not explain at all what his relationship was with the Claimant, for example if he was a patient, and, if so, over what period this had been the case, and with what regularity he had seen him. The Claimant’s mother in her witness statement referred to the Claimant having spoken to “his psychiatrist” about bus travel, but it is not clear on the face of the evidence whether this is a reference to Dr Carroll, or the extent of his medical relationship with the Claimant.[10]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 deleterious impact on the Claimant’s mental state”. Ultimately, his professional opinion was that it was “an unrealistic expectation to spend a total duration of travel amounting to over 1 hour on a busy and crowded public bus to attend college given his complex mental health, emotional and sensory needs”. Dr Carroll does not address whether it would assist the Claimant to be accompanied on the bus.[11]These concerns were echoed in the Claimant’s mother’s stage 2 appeal, which concluded “travel assistance is not a convenience, it is a necessity for the Claimant’s safety, wellbeing and right to education”. She also explained that he needed to travel with someone he trusted.[12]As the decision letter also made clear, the Defendant had available the Claimant’s EHCP. This made clear that the Claimant was not an “independent traveller,” although he would like to become one. It was noted that he had “no awareness of danger and appropriate behaviour when out in the community.” His mother, in the plan, stated that she would like him to be more independent and have more “road sense,” with support on London transport. The Claimant to quote the plan, was “mad about buses and would like to travel on buses all day”.[13]The Defendant also had available, as the decision letter makes clear, an Annual Review report from Learning Enterprise College. This considered the current outcome from the EHCP and analysed progress towards that outcome. This review noted that the Claimant “has settled well into college and its routines and has developed trust with staff, allowing him to express what he enjoys and how he likes to work. He is encouraged to focus on one task per session, using visuals and checklists to support his learning and help him stay on task.”[14]In relation to travel, the Review observed that the Claimant “enjoys travel training and loves using the bus, which is one of his favourite activities. He knows the bus numbers to local areas such as Bexleyheath and Welling and understands the rules and expected behaviour while travelling. However, he still requires 1:1 support when out in the community, as he is not yet able to travel independently. College staff provide regular opportunities to practise travel training and reinforce safety and practical skills, helping him gradually build confidence and understanding for future independence”.[15]It is accepted by the Claimant that this was all material available to, and to be taken into account by the Defendant in determining the Stage 2 appeal.

The decision letter

[16]The decision in issue in this permission application is the stage 2 appeal travel assistance decision of the appeal panel, set out in their letter dated 2 February 2026. The parties each undertook an analysis of this letter, which has ultimately to be read as a whole. The letter stated at the outset that the Panel had taken account of the views of the Claimant’s mother, quoted above, the medical evidence including that of Dr Carroll, the Claimant’s EHCP, the annual review documentation quoted above, and the Council’s relevant policies. Having considered those sources of information, the Defendant’s panel’s decision recognised:
“ASD and ADHD • Learning disability • Anxiety • Vulnerability in community settings • Social communication difficulties The Panel noted your views about the severity of [HUR]’s needs. However, as a Panel our decision needs to be based on the combination of views supported through evidence including the documentation including the EHCP, which highlighted that [HUR] • Has previously travelled with parental accompaniment • Engages well and regulates effectively once settled at college. Was being put forward for a Supported Internship • Attended Employability Hub with other learners within Greenwich • Has developing independence skills • Has identified travel training goals within his EHCP The panel concluded that [HUR] could reasonably access Independent Travel Training, delivered by trained staff experienced in supporting anxious and neurodivergent learners. At Post 16, developing independence—including safe travel skills—is a key educational outcome, and the guidance emphasises supporting progression toward adulthood wherever possible.”
[17]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: • [HUR]’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 [HUR]’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 competing cases

[18]The Claimant advances one ground, namely that the Defendant did not conduct the careful and sensitive assessment here required. As it was expressed in the Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence:
“the Defendant has not considered relevant considerations in reaching its decision and has otherwise made leaps of logic, i.e. process irrationality. The Defendant has failed to meet the Claimant’s pleaded case and does not argue that it has in fact considered the key issues/material identified by the Claimant, including expert evidence from Dr Carroll setting out the risks to the Claimant of the current arrangements.”
[19]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 Claimant is reported to be “extremely anxious” throughout, when in a crowded environment, and has been subject to abuse. He has been accompanied on the bus by his mother, his father or his sister, but this is unsustainable. The Claimant’s mother is an unpaid carer for the Claimant’s father who has complex mental health conditions. The Claimant’s mother is “terrified” about leaving the Claimant’s father alone due to his mental health needs, so she brings the Claimant’s father with him where possible or tries to arrange for her daughter to spend time with him, but this is exhausting and not practicable.[20]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.

The ‘decision’

[21]It is also 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.[22]The Claimant’s mother, in her 2nd statement served with leave at the permission stage, asserts that she did not understand this to be what the Defendant was offering. In response, the Defendant points to an email dated 19 September 2025, which proposed the use of the travel training programme. It explained that this was “designed to help [the Claimant] develop the skills and confidence needed to travel safely and independently”. The email went on to say “we would begin with accompanied journeys, gradually reducing support as [the Claimant] becomes more confident with regular updates provided to you throughout the process”. The transcript of the Stage 2 teams meeting also demonstrates that the scheme, and the nature of what was being offered to the Claimant, was explained to the Claimant’s mother. It was made clear both that the Claimant would be accompanied by trained professionals when travelling, and that the position would be kept under review.[23]I do not for a moment question the honesty of the Claimant’s mother in her recollection that she had not understood what the independent travel training would involve, in particular as to the Claimant being accompanied by a professional person. However, it is equally clear that this is what the Defendant was offering, and that what it involved had been explained. The fact that there has been a misunderstanding may well explain the degree of concern raised by the Claimant’s mother, and her determination to pursue this permission application. However, it does not itself render the Defendant’s decision irrational either as to procedure or content.

Relevant law and policy

[24]Although in his Statement of Facts and Grounds, the Claimant sought to rely on sections 509AA and 509BB, Education Act 1996, as the statutory basis for the requirement that the local authority provide transport for the Claimant, it is accepted now that the relevant provision is section 508F in view of the Claimant’s age. This states:
“(1) A local authority in England must make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary , or as the Secretary of State may direct, for the purposes mentioned in subsections (2) and (3). (2) The first purpose is to facilitate the attendance of adults receiving education at institutions— (a) maintained or assisted by the authority and providing further or higher education (or both), or (b) within the further education sector. … (4) Any transport provided under subsection (1) must be provided free of charge. … (6) In considering whether they are required by subsection (1) to make arrangements in relation to a particular adult, a local authority must have regard (among other things) to the age of the adult and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which the adult could reasonably be expected to take.”
[25]In JM v Staffordshire CC [2016] UKUT 0246 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal said this about section 508F (at para.34):
“The Local Authority has a duty to make arrangements for [the Appellant] if they consider that to be necessary having regard to all of the relevant circumstances. This is not a pure discretion. Although the question of what is necessary is a matter for them, in deciding that question they must exercise their judgment judiciously and in good faith. If they come to the conclusion that it is necessary, they must make the necessary arrangements and the transportation must be free of charge.”
[26]This has to be taken together with the Defendant’s Post 16 Transport policy statement which in its eligibility criteria (at para.2.1.1(b)) states:
“You must be aged 16-18 but under 19 years at the start of the academic year (i.e., on 31 August 2023). If you have a statement of Special Education Need, a Learning Difficulty Assessment (LDA or s139a) or an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) which identifies the need for specific travel assistance you may receive travel assistance up to the age of 25 years.”
It is accepted by the Defendant on this basis that there was an obligation to support the Claimant’s travel. The issue was whether the support it offered, namely independent travel training, was rationally identified.[27]It is therefore clear that the decision as to what support to provide to the Claimant was a matter for its discretion, which had to be exercised in good faith and judiciously. In R(S) v Education A15 (Waltham Forest) [2006] EWHC 3144 (Admin), at para.35, the Court made clear that what was required in this context was a “sensitive and careful assessment based so far as possible on reliable information or evidence”.[28]In R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin) at para 56, Chamberlain J explained what was meant by process rationality:
“Process rationality includes the requirement that the decision maker must have regard to all mandatorily relevant considerations and no irrelevant ones, but is not limited to that. In addition, the process of reasoning should contain no logical error or critical gap. This is the type of irrationality Sedley J was describing when he spoke of a decision that "does not add up – in which, in other words, there is an error of reasoning which robs the decision of logic": R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p. Balchin [1998] 1 PLR 1, [13]. In similar vein, Saini J said that the court should ask, "does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is there an unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning which fails to justify the conclusion?": R (Wells) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin), at [33].”

Assessment

[29]The Claimant submits that it is arguable that there has been procedural irrationality here, of the kind described in KP, because the decision taken by the Defendant is at odds with the evidence in particular of Dr Carroll, with which the letter fails to grapple with in any meaningful way. The requirement that the Claimant travel to College by bus is intolerable and unsustainable.[30]Against that background, 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.[31]The Defendant was required to take account of Dr Carroll’s concerns, and his view was identified as one of the matters taken into account. However, it was not required to reach its determination solely by reference to that view. On the contrary, in accordance with Waltham Forest, it had to consider reliable information from relevant sources. It thus had to set Dr Carroll’s opinion against, for example, the assessment of the College quoted above that the Claimant was developing well at College and developing trust in the staff, which would support an expectation of developing trust in the professionals who would escort him on the bus, and the benefits of his receiving support whilst developing confidence in travel with the aim of ultimately being able to travel independently. Dr Carroll did not address escorted travel, whereas the College Review and the EHCP both did.[32]On that analysis, 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.[33]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.[34]Accordingly, this application for permission is refused.