Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child’s transport needs, did not communicate effectively and caused delays in arranging suitable transport. We find the Council at fault for failing to reflect key information from the application in its risk assessment, and for failing to keep Mrs X updated. As a result, unsuitable transport was arranged, and Mrs X incurred avoidable costs to ensure her child could attend education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child Y’s transport to college:
1. failed to carry out an adequate risk assessment;
2. refused to allow the previous taxi company to continue providing transport;
3. did not provide sufficient information or updates during the assessment process;
4. failed to take Y’s individual needs into account; and
5. did not update her email address as requested.
2. Mrs X says that, as a result, Y was left without suitable transport and she was forced to pay for a private taxi.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Transport cost for adult learners

9. Councils must arrange for the transport it considers necessary for an adult with an EHC plan to attend their education or training placement. Councils may also be able to assist with transport under the Care Act 2014 if the young adult has care needs. 
10. The Council’s approach to home-to-school transport and risk assessments
11. The Council requires parents or carers to complete an application form so it can assess whether a child is eligible for home-to-school transport. In some cases, an individual risk assessment may also be needed to understand the child’s specific transport needs. Applicants will normally be notified of the Council’s decision within 10 working days, however if there are delays in providing the necessary information, this can result in a delay in arranging suitable transport.
12. There may also be times when a child’s transport arrangements need to be reviewed. For example, if their needs change or if there is a problem with the existing transport. In such cases, transport may need to be temporarily suspended while the Council reviews the situation and considers a new transport plan. This process can take up to 15 working days, and sometimes longer if specialist training is needed to support the child’s needs.

What happened

13. Y has special educational needs and has received Council arranged home-to-school transport for several years, most recently from a company I will refer to as taxi company A.
14. In December 2023, Mrs X updated her email address with the Council.
15. In March 2024, Mrs X submitted a school transport application for Y who was due to start a new education setting in September. The application included both parents’ contact details and outlined Y’s individual needs, including that she could pose a risk to other children if seated close to them. The email address listed for Mrs X was different to the one she provided in December 2023.
16. In July, the Council reviewed Y’s risk assessment but did not make any changes. The assessment did not specify any restrictions or further information on sharing transport. The Council sent the assessment to the email Mrs X included on the March application form. A copy was also sent to Y’s other parent, but this went to an email address that did not match the one listed on the form.
17. Later that month, Mrs X contacted the Council because she had not received an outcome to her school transport application. The Council told her the application was still being processed.
18. In late August, transport was arranged based on the July risk assessment. A new provider, taxi company B, visited Mrs X and Y. Mrs X raised concerns that Y had been allocated shared transport, which she believed was unsafe, because there is a risk to other children if Y is seated close to them, and asked for the decision to be reviewed. She also requested that taxi company A continue providing the transport.
19. Within three days, the Council completed a new risk assessment. This confirmed that Y should travel alone and repeated the information about Y’s needs that Mrs X had provided in her March application.
20. In September, Y began attending the new education setting. As a solo provider had not yet been arranged, Mrs X chose to continue using taxi company A and paid privately.
21. Later that month, the Council carried out a tendering process to find a new provider. Taxi company C was successful and were due to start transport the following week. The Council informed Mrs X that taxi company A had submitted a bid, but it was significantly more expensive than others. The Council explained that all bids were evaluated fairly under its procurement process.
22. After meeting taxi company C, Mrs X raised concerns that they lacked the correct paperwork and were not suitable. The Council provided reassurance and explained the possibility of reimbursing the private costs she had incurred.
23. Taxi company C offered an interim crew to begin transport, but Mrs X declined, citing concerns that multiple changes would be disruptive for Y.
24. A week later the paperwork was resolved, and a second meeting was arranged. However, during this Mrs X found that taxi company C did not have the correct seatbelt for Y, which caused a further day’s delay.
25. In October Mrs X submitted evidence of the cost she had paid to taxi company A. The Council began assessing the reimbursement request.
26. In November, the Council decided not to approve reimbursement. It explained that transport had initially been arranged in line with the July risk assessment, which did not state that Y required solo travel. Once the updated assessment was completed, the Council acted within its published timescales. It said the transport Mrs X arranged with taxi company A during this period was a private arrangement.
27. Mrs X complained to the Council about the decision. She said it had failed to meet Y’s needs, delayed completing an accurate risk assessment, failed to keep her informed, and prioritised cost over Y’s welfare.
28. The Council responded, confirming it would not change its position on reimbursement.
29. Mrs X escalated the complaint, and the Council issued its final response later that month, stating it had nothing further to add.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted that the information provided by Mrs X about Y’s behaviour towards others should have been included in the July 2024 risk assessment. It acknowledged that this would have been useful for transport staff. The Council initially said the omission would not have changed the decision to arrange shared transport. However, it later accepted that for Y to travel safely with others, a specialist vehicle would have been needed, but even this may not have provided adequate separation.

My findings

Risk assessment

31. The school transport application submitted by Mrs X in March 2024 clearly described Y’s needs, including the risk that Y could pose to other children if travelling with them. Despite this, the Council’s July risk assessment did not reflect this information and did not include any mitigation measures to manage the risk of shared travel. This was fault.
32. The Council has since acknowledged that the information should have been included in the risk assessment. Once it was, the Council decided Y should move to solo transport. This decision was based not only on Y’s behaviour but also on the limited practicality of sourcing a suitable specialist vehicle in the timeframe and the likely impact on other students if sharing continued.
33. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that if the Council had included the relevant information in July, it would have arranged solo transport from the start of term. However, on balance, it is likely the Council would have tendered for a specialist vehicle to allow Y to share transport more safely.
34. Because the initial transport offered did not meet Y’s needs, Mrs X arranged private transport with taxi company A to ensure Y could attend the education setting from the start of term. While I understand that Mrs X acted in Y’s best interests and aimed to provide consistency, there were more cost-effective alternatives available.
35. Where fault has led to avoidable financial loss, our approach is to recommend a remedy that puts the person back in the position they would have been but for the fault. We do not, however, reimburse all costs incurred, only those directly linked to the avoidable impact. In this case, I recommend the Council reimburse Mrs X the equivalent amount it would have paid had solo transport with taxi company C been in place from the start of the school year.

Communication

36. The Council failed to inform Mrs X of the outcome of her school transport application. According to the Council’s SEN transport policy, applicants should be notified in writing or by email within 10 working days, though it acknowledges that this may not always be possible during the summer period.
37. The Council has not provided any evidence to show that it communicated its decision to Mrs X before the new school year started. This was fault. However, the notification would not have outlined specific transport arrangements, such as whether Y would be travelling alone or sharing, so this failure did not contribute directly to the problems that later occurred.
38. When Mrs X chased an outcome in late July, the Council also failed to identify that she should have received a copy of the risk assessment that had been sent earlier that month. This was a missed opportunity to spot that Mrs X had not been provided with the risk assessment. This was fault. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that this would have led to an earlier reassessment of Y’s transport needs, but it has left some uncertainty.

Use of contact details

39. The Council used the email address provided by Mrs X on the March 2024 application form when sending the July risk assessment. Although this address differed from the one she had supplied in December 2023, I find no fault in the Council using the most recent address given on the relevant application.
40. However, the Council also attempted to send the risk assessment to Y’s other parent but used an incorrect email address that did not match the one provided. This was fault. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether using the correct address would have led to an earlier reassessment of Y’s transport needs, but this mistake has left some uncertainty.

Taxi company selection

41. The Council carried out a competitive tender process to source solo transport for Y. Although taxi company A, who had previously transported Y, submitted a bid, they were not selected due to higher cost. I have reviewed the Council’s process and decision-making and find no fault in how it handled the procurement of a provider.

Back to top

Action

42. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Mrs X £1,344.50 to recognise the avoidable financial impact caused by the failure to consider and document key information during the July risk assessment review.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman