Summary: Ms D complained about the Council’s travel arrangements for her child as it will not administer emergency medication if needed. We found the Council at fault for how it considered her child’s needs and circumstances, how it communicated its appeal decisions to Ms D, and for its Special Educational Needs and Disability transport policy not being in line with statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms D complains about the school transport provided to her child who has special needs and a medical condition. If her child has a seizure, the Council’s policy is transport staff will not administer emergency medication and will call an ambulance instead. Ms D is concerned this could endanger her child’s health. She also says current travel arrangement are not suitable as it causes distress for her child's routine and the Council's position on the matter has caused Mrs D significant frustration, distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Ms D and considered her views.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
8. Ms D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

School transport arrangements

9. The statutory guidance (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2024) says:
• In relation to children with medical needs, councils should consider whether and how those needs might affect the child during their journey to and from school and, where necessary, put in place proportionate arrangements to manage those needs. Assessments should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis and consider relevant factors.
• There is no expectation for a child’s routine medication to be administered. It may sometimes be necessary to administer a child’s emergency medication. The driver or passenger assistant responsible for administering the medication should receive training from a health care professional.
• The driver and any passenger assistant involved in providing the child’s travel should be aware of their needs and how to respond to them and have received any training necessary to enable them to do so.
• It would expect transport staff to participate with training required to meet the specific needs of the children travelling, for example, administering their emergency medication.

The Council’s SEND Home to School Travel Assistance Policy

10. Under the “Medication” section: “Transport staff are responsible for the health and safety of pupils in their care, but do not administer any form of medication while in transit to and from school. If parents believe it is unsafe for their child to travel on transport without medication being administered, then we may be unable to assist”.
11. “The council’s procedure is that emergency services will be called to deal with emergencies and parents will be informed. It is for parents to decide if they wish for their child to be transported under these circumstances. In cases where there are complex medical needs, the council will seek to provide appropriate support, by offering a Travel Assistance Budget. This will help the parent make alternative arrangements, that they deem safe”.

School transport appeals

12. The statutory guidance says outcome letters should be sent to parents after both stages of an appeal. These letters should clearly explain why they reached a decision, how a review was conducted, and the factors considered in reaching their decision.

Relevant background

13. Ms D’s child (“J”) has special needs, mobility issues, and a medical condition. If J has a seizure, emergency medication should be given to them promptly. The Council’s travel policy does not permit transport staff to administer any form of medication.
14. At the time of Ms D’s complaint, the Council provided school bus transport some days a week, through Company A. A specific passenger assistant (“PA”) worked these days, who was trained in administering emergency medication. The other days, Ms D transported J herself under a travel budget.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

15. Ms D submitted a Stage One appeal as she did not want to continue with the travel arrangements. She said it was not working and caused distress to J with inconsistency in their routine.
16. The Council’s outcome letter said it would offer J a bus space for the whole week. It did not explain how it came to this decision. Ms D appealed at Stage Two. She wanted a trained PA who could administer emergency medication if needed on the other days.
17. The panel considered Ms D’s appeal. The Council’s panel notes are very brief. It decided the offer of a five day bus space was appropriate and other PAs for the rest of the week would be trained on J’s needs. The outcome letter did not explain how it came to this decision.
18. The Council said the PAs would use information to recognise the signs of J having a seizure and then call an ambulance. The Council confirmed the PAs would not administer emergency medication.
19. Ms D complained to us. She was dissatisfied with the outcome. She continued with the previous arrangement as she was worried about the risk to J. As emergency medication has to be given swiftly, if J had to wait for an ambulance, it could be too long without medical assistance which could have serious consequences. Ms D also said this split arrangement disrupted J’s routine and regularly upset J’s wellbeing when they arrived at school.
20. Ms D said to me the policy said transport staff would not administer emergency medication, but she felt comfort on the days J was on the bus, as there was a PA who had the required training present.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

21. In response to my enquiries, the Council said J has not had a seizure on transport for a number of years. It decided it could provide additional PAs with relevant information about J’s needs so they could be confident in their duties.
22. The Council’s policy (referred to Paragraphs 10 and 11) is that staff do not administer any medication on transport. If parents did not want this, it would offer assistance for parents to make their own travel arrangements with a personal budget. This was followed and applied to Ms D’s case.
23. I asked the Council if it had carried out any risks assessments for J. It said after the Stage Two appeal, it received J’s health information and shared it with Company A.
24. Company A said it was very difficult to get insurance cover for providing medication. It said its crew are regularly reminded in the event of a medical emergency; an ambulance would be called immediately. It said there were huge risks in providing medication on transport, and the likelihood of crews being able to use their training after a length of time receiving it, would mean they are relying mainly on memory, rather than routine. Company A referred to other considerations around J’s situation.

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not taken into account relevant information, or failed to properly explain why it has made a decision. However, we are not an appeal body; we do not have the power to overturn council decisions or replace them with our own. This means that I cannot decide what transport arrangements the Council should make for Ms D’s child.

Consideration of J’s case and appeals

26. The Council’s appeal outcome letters did not clearly explain to Ms D how it made its decisions and what factors it considered. This is not in line with statutory guidance (see Paragraph 12). Decision letters should be sufficiently detailed to enable parents to properly understand the decision it made. This is fault. The panel notes also lack detail. This has caused Ms D some uncertainty about whether it properly considered J’s case.
27. It is not a duty that councils must administer emergency medication on transport, however councils must consider each case on its own merits. It is up to the Council to weigh up relevant considerations and decide arrangements that are proportionate to manage a child’s needs. To do this, it should be able to demonstrate why it considers the arrangements it has made are suitable, and how it has balanced this against J’s special needs, any risks, and their medical condition.
28. After considering the information seen, on balance, in my view the Council has not sufficiently evidenced this for the following reasons:
• The Council said it made the decision to provide Company A with J’s care plan to ensure the crew were aware of what to look out for, due to J’s lack of seizures in recent years on transport. I note this can be a relevant consideration. However, the Council has not said why this was sufficient to satisfy itself J was safe on their journey compared to the potential risk and consequences, nor specifically engaged with how this addressed Ms D’s main concerns about emergency medication that may be needed.
• It appears the Council has not carried out a risk assessment for J. It has not explained why. I understand J also other special educational needs that can affect their behaviour, as well as medical needs. This leads me to question what informed the Council’s decisions about J in Ms D’s appeals. For example, it is not clear what information the Council considered to make its decisions and I cannot see evidence if it asked or took the views of other professionals. This links to the fault with the lack of details with the panel decisions and outcome letters.
• Company A took its own view on J’s situation. While Company A took account of relevant factors, the Council did not offer any further explanation on this when it shared it with me. It is not clear if the Council has simply adopted Company A’s stance. It is ultimately the Council’s own decision, but I cannot see it has analysed and recorded its own position on the matter.
29. I am not satisfied the Council has had proper consideration of J’s specific needs and circumstances or provided clear reasoning as to why its transport offer was appropriate given Ms D’s specific concerns about emergency medication and risks when it wasn’t administered. This is fault causing uncertainty and frustration to Ms D. This may also stem from its flawed position about medication in its SEND transport policy (addressed below).

The Council’s SEND Transport Assistance Policy

30. When making decisions about a child’s transport arrangements, statutory guidance says that councils need to take an individual approach to decision making on a case-by-case basis.
31. The Council’s policy of never providing emergency medication on transport is in conflict with this position. In each individual case, the Council should decide whether it is appropriate to do so, rather than saying it will never do so. It has adopted a blanket approach with an overly rigid policy which does not allow for wider consideration of each specific case on its own merits. This is fault as the Council is fettering its discretion and this could cause injustice to others. I have made a service recommendation to address this.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
33. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Ms D for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology); and
• Offer Ms D a fresh Stage Two appeal with a new panel, taking into account the faults I found. It should invite her to submit any further evidence if she wishes. After the appeal, it should write to Ms D clearly explaining the reasons for its decision and how it was reached.
34. As a service improvement, within three months of the final decision, the Council should:
• Review and amend its SEND school transport policy about medication so that it reflects statutory guidance. In particular, the Council should ensure it does not fetter its discretion and ensures it makes its decisions based on the individual circumstances and medical needs of a child or young person; and
• It should send written notifications to relevant transport staff, to include the reasons for the changes in its SEND transport policy relating to medication and reminders to act in line with this.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
36. I have not made a recommendation about the fault identified in Paragraph 26 as a recent decision finding similar fault has already addressed this, therefore it is not necessary to repeat.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Ms D. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman