Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable school transport for her child’s disabilities and special needs. This caused significant distress, frustration and inconvenience for the family. We have ended our investigation as Mrs X has reached a settlement with the Council and achieved most of the outcomes she wanted. We could not achieve significantly more, and it would not be a proportionate use of our resources to further investigate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide suitable school transport for her child. She said the arrangements it made were inappropriate for their disabilities and special educational needs and went against recommendations from a medical professional. Mrs X says this caused significant frustration, distress and inconvenience to her child and family. Due to the lack of safe transport, she had to transport her child to school herself. She said this caused major disruption with time and financial implications, impacting on their wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

What happened – summary of key relevant events

6. Mrs X’s child (J) has disabilities and special educational needs.
7. In early 2025, in response to some transport difficulties, Mrs X obtained a GP letter which recommended J should have sole occupancy transport to reduce overstimulation and heightened anxiety (leading to sickness) during school journeys.
8. The Council made some adjustments to its travel arrangements to support J’s needs with the use of an 8-seater vehicle for two children. J was able to use this transport up until summer 2025.
9. In July 2025, the Council wrote to Mrs X with new transport arrangements to start in the new school year. J would be in a shared vehicle with up to 5 children.
10. Mrs X formally complained. She asked it to reinstate the previous provider. She raised concerns about safeguarding and risks to J’s safety with the proposed transport. It was not suitable for J’s severe sensory processing difficulties and not in line with medical professional advice.
11. The Council responded. It had warned parents of potential changes because of procurement and tendering processes it had to follow with transport providers. It said the changes were minimal to the current arrangement which J travelled well with. It said J could try it and it would review.
12. In August 2025, Mrs X complained to us. The Council later agreed to keep the previous arrangements but with a different provider.

Events since Mrs X’s complaint to us

13. In September 2025, the Council sent a vehicle with more pupils than agreed. This caused severe distress to J and they physically lashed out at others in the vehicle.
14. Mrs X said she then had to transport J for three weeks as the Council delayed in arranging a suitable alternative.
15. Mrs X sent the Council a Pre-Action Protocol letter, acting on behalf of J, for breaches of the Equality Act 2010. She sought:
• Provision of sole occupancy transport for J;
• An apology and written assurance the Council would provide suitable transport for J from now on for their needs;
• Reimbursement of petrol costs and for the loss of time affecting her job; and
• A financial amount for the emotional harm to J and the considerable strain and impact on their family.
16. The Council provided solo transport for J promptly. It later reimbursed Mrs X’s petrol costs and has since reached a settlement agreement with her which outlines substantial financial compensation.

Analysis

17. Mrs X’s complaint to us was before the altered transport arrangements began in September 2025. Other events since this did not form part of her initial formal complaint to the Council. Events have moved on significantly since.
18. The Council has now offered a settlement agreement as a result of the Pre-Action Protocol letter from Mrs X; it is not part of contested legal proceedings. But we must still consider our general discretion as to whether to investigate.
19. Mrs X has provided a copy of the draft consent order reflecting the agreed settlement terms. At the time of writing, both parties are waiting for the necessary court approval needed for the settlement to take effect. But as it stands, it appears the Council has agreed with these terms.
20. Considering this document, and after court approval, Mrs X would have already achieved most of the outcomes she was seeking. Given the settlement reached for the main personal injustice, there is insufficient remaining injustice to justify our continued involvement, nor would we likely be able to achieve significantly more to warrant an investigation.
21. We must be proportionate with our investigations. In these circumstances, it would not be a good use of public resources to further investigate. We are therefore ending our investigation.

Back to top

Decision

22. I have ended the investigation of the complaint, as we would not achieve a significantly different outcome in addition to what Mrs X has already achieved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman