Summary: Mrs X complained about the unsuitable transport the Council provided for her child which led to harmful incidents and inappropriate restraint. We found the Council at fault for not offering Mrs X formal escalation or an appeal with its decision, not properly recording evidence to support its decisions, and failing to carry out a risk assessment. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress to the family. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and review its policy to ensure parents can formally challenge decisions about transport arrangements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not make suitable school transport provision for her child. She says they were involved in a few incidents causing distress and leading to inappropriate restraint, with the Council unfairly suspending them from transport. She said she removed them for their safety, causing the family significant distress and frustration. She also says the Council’s school policy for transport is flawed.

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. 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(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X 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

Travel to school statutory guidance

8. The Government has published statutory guidance for authorities, “Travel to school for children of compulsory school age.” I have referred to this as “the Guidance” in this statement. Local authorities must have regard to the Guidance when carrying out their duties to arrange travel to school for children of compulsory school age.
9. Relevant to the events in this complaint, the Guidance says:
• it is for the authority to decide if it needs to risk-assess arrangements and what is reasonably practical in each case. The Guidance says authorities may decide it needs to risk-assess some children’s travel arrangements, but it is unlikely the authority would need to complete a risk assessment for all children. The Guidance says matters the authority may need to consider include the child's behaviour, including their special educational needs or disability where relevant, and the likelihood of harm to the child or others while travelling.
• Parents should be able to complain about the service they have received in relation to travel to school. They should also be able to appeal a decision taken by the local authority about their child’s travel to school. It is for local authorities to determine which matters should be handled as complaints and which should be handled as appeals. Typically, matters such as whether a child is eligible for free travel, or whether the travel the local authority has arranged is suitable for the child’s needs will be handled as appeals. Matters such as punctuality of a school bus will be handled as complaints.
10. The Council’s policy says parents have a right of appeal if a transport application is refused.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

11. Mrs X’s child (Y) has complex special educational needs (SEN), and has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
12. In late 2024, Mrs X made a transport application. At Panel, the Council considered Y had high needs and the application included “challenging and self-injurious behaviour”. It noted Mrs X asked for individual transport as she felt Y would not be able to cope on a bus with others.
13. A month later, the Council wrote to Mrs X. It would provide a shared bus with other children and a Passenger Assistant (PA). It did not outline what she should do if she disagreed with this.
14. In January 2025, transport started for Y. A few days later, Y was involved in a physical incident with another child on the bus.
15. Internal Council emails show it discussed the incident. The PA said they changed the seating arrangements, and they put Y in a harness to secure them. It noted Mrs X had previously given permission for a harness to be used. The Council decided it would not withdraw transport as Y had complex needs. It would take the case to Panel as Mrs X wanted individual transport or a 1:1 PA.
16. Mrs X emailed the Council later that day. She said it had suspended Y from transport which went against statutory guidance. She informed the Council the transport was unsuitable for Y without a 1:1. It placed the PA in an unsafe situation with other vulnerable children at risk as they could not meet all their needs.
17. A few days later, an internal Panel discussed the case. The meeting notes said a senior staff member would travel on the bus to witness the behaviours. It would work with Y’s needs and a harness to be used in the short term.
18. The next week, the Council held another Panel. The notes said there was no space for the senior staff member on the bus to observe the journeys. The driver and PA said Y was travelling well. Y still wore the harness as the PA felt it necessary. The Council thought the issues had been resolved.
19. At the end of January 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council. She appreciated the PA felt they had no choice but to restrain Y for their safety and the other children. But she said the Council had not listened which led to the situation now. She said the Council did not follow up with actions it said it would take or update her. She said another incident happened with a child causing physical distress to Y. She did not want Y restrained. She arranged to take Y to school and back temporarily.
20. In early February 2025, the Council held another Panel. The meeting notes outlined Y’s history. It noted Mrs X told the Council in previous transport arranged, Y had a carer sit next to them. The Council said it told Mrs X this could not be arranged and Y would be in a shared bus. It recorded Mrs X said from the start it would not work. It later decided the safest way to transport Y was with a harness. It told Mrs X at the time and it would be reviewed once Y settled on the bus. It arranged a meeting with Mrs X the next week.
21. The Council responded at Stage 1 to Mrs X’s complaint. It outlined the actions it had taken so far after the first incident. It apologised for poor communication on follow up points and it would make changes to invite parents to weekly panels to share their views. It noted a further incident since and the PA acted reactively to minimise further risk. It recognised Mrs X wanted a quieter bus for Y. It made changes to the passengers on the route and agreed Y could travel without a harness.
22. In late February 2025, Mrs X escalated her complaint. She referred to points in the Council’s transport policy which she felt needed rewording or revising. She felt this contributed to Y’s current situation. This included reference to considering the needs and behaviour of SEN children, including Y’s, and how it dealt with restraint matters.
23. Since the start of March 2025, the Council provided a 1:1 PA for Y. It apologised for not informing Mrs X.
24. In late March 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 2. It said it would improve and review its policy, along with wording in places. It would produce a policy on restraints. It made new arrangements for Y, including a 1:1 PA. It recognised the experiences Y had and saw the changes as positive for them.
25. In April 2025, Mrs X complained to us. Mrs X said suitable transport has been in place since.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

26. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a risk assessment it had for Y from several years ago, for transport to a past setting. This included risks identified and strategies to help manage Y’s behaviour on transport. The Council said Y’s EHC Plan at the time did not outline a need for a 1:1.
27. Since Mrs X’s complaint to us, the Council has updated its school travel policy. This included some updated wording around points Mrs X raised, and a section about the use of harnesses for children with SEN.

Analysis

28. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say what travel arrangements a council should make for a child. That is a decision for a council to make. We review the process a council follows to make its decisions. We may also criticise a council if it has not considered relevant evidence or properly explained its reasons for decisions.

Appeal or formal escalation

29. The Council’s travel policy appears to say a parent only has a right of appeal if a transport application is refused. This does not apply here as the Council agreed Y as eligible. But the Guidance (see Paragraph 9) says parents should be able to appeal a decision about their child’s travel to school. In this case, the Council was aware Mrs X disagreed with the transport as she felt Y needed a 1:1. It did not offer her an appeal. It also did not treat it as a formal complaint at the time, which would be another way to manage Mrs X’s concerns about the transport. Either way, the Council did not give Mrs X the chance to have this formally reconsidered through an internal process. This is fault and not in line with the Guidance.
30. The Council made its decision in December 2024, and the travel started in January 2025. On balance, I cannot say whether the outcome would have been different had an appeal happened, given the timing of events and the holiday period. But there is still some uncertainty for Mrs X as she should have been given this right.
31. I recognise the Council held internal Panels after the first incident where it discussed some elements around travel arrangements. But this is not the same as an appeal; this is a separate process which was a reactive response (which I will consider later), rather than a formal review of the initial decision making.

The Council’s decision about transport arrangements for Y

32. In the absence of an appeal or formal escalation, I now consider how the Council decided Y’s original travel arrangements.
33. Councils should assess the individual needs of a child when deciding suitable travel for children with SEN. In my view, the Council has not provided substantive evidence of its decision making at the time. I can see Panel meetings noted Y’s needs but did not say how or why it decided a shared bus would be suitable for them.
34. Y’s 2024 application referred to their challenging and self-injury behaviour. The Council also had a previous relevant risk assessment for Y’s travel. It has not explained why it did not do an updated one for 2024. The Guidance does not require councils to risk assess each child. But in this case, given the above (in line with Paragraph 9), the nature of these are relevant considerations to warrant one. On balance, without an explanation from the Council, this is fault. This was a missed opportunity for the Council to show it reviewed Y’s current needs and behaviours specifically for their transport application.
35. I also note in a Panel note, it recorded that Mrs X explained what worked for Y in the past with a 1:1 PA. The Council said it “could not” arrange this for Y. But it did not say why. This is fault, causing frustration to Mrs X. If it was because it did not think Y required one, it should have explained this. In response to me, it said Y’s EHC Plan did not say a need for a 1:1. But I do not consider the Council can rely on this on its own as school and travel environments are different, and as above, it has not demonstrated a holistic approach.
36. Overall, on balance, I am not satisfied the Council evidenced proper consideration of Y’s SEN needs or explanations with its decision making. This is fault, causing uncertainty to Mrs X.

The Council’s handling around incidents with Y on the bus

37. In her complaint, Mrs X said the Council suspended Y’s transport after the first incident. The evidence I have seen does not suggest this. The Council’s contemporaneous records say it made the decision not to withdraw transport for Y due to his complex needs. I am satisfied the Council has followed statutory guidance here, which we would expect.
38. However, Mrs X said she was told this on the phone. I do not have a recording of the call. But she promptly emailed the Council so on balance, I consider this likely happened. In my view, this appeared to be a mistake by the Council but is still poor communication. I cannot see the Council confirmed its decision to her in response to her email. This is fault and caused Mrs X avoidable distress.
39. Following on from this, the Council said it did not withdraw transport and instead made changes including the use of the harness on Y. In reaction to the first incident, the PA did this to ensure safety, which Mrs X agreed with. It then kept Y in the harness for future journeys. I note it initially had Mrs X’s consent, but she later withdrew it. The Council should have done a risk assessment at this point to evidence why it decided to do this along with other considerations. A harness should not be a primary method to manage challenging behaviour. I recognise the Council was concerned about risk of harm to others, but it also needed to balance and consider less restrictive options for Y. It was a missed opportunity to consider triggers or other strategies for Y to mitigate future risk. This is fault, causing frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X and other arrangements had to be made with her and the School to transport Y for a few weeks.
40. The Council promptly recorded the PA’s concerns when incidents happened, it contacted Mrs X at the time when it could and arranged meetings to discuss the concerns. While there is evidence of good record keeping here, Mrs X said these discussions were held without her and the Council did not share outcomes with her, causing her frustration. It is positive that the Council accepted its fault with poor communication here and said it would make changes to involve parents in these meetings. The Council did review and monitor the situation and later made changes in line with Y’s needs, including a 1:1 PA. But there is still uncertainty for Mrs X as to whether had it not been for the above faults, whether this could have been done sooner.
41. The Council has made some updates to its transport policy considering points raised by Mrs X. This is positive action by the Council.

Back to top

Areed Action

42. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
43. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X and Y in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified and make a symbolic payment of £100 to recognise this.
44. Within two months of the final decision:
• The Council should review its school transport policy to include what formal process parents should follow when they do not agree with the Council’s travel arrangements for their child, including timescales; and
• Once in place, the Council should write to relevant staff about this process and ensures all decision letters about transport arrangements to parents signpost them to this process (for example, by creating a letter template).
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman