Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to change home to school transport arrangements for the complainant’s son.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council acted with fault when, from September 2025, it changed home to school transport arrangements for her son, Y, who has special educational needs. Mrs X said its decision failed to take account that Y has autism and significant sensory and emotional regulation difficulties.
2. Mrs X said Y would become distressed by the change. For over three years he had built a trusted relationship with the taxi driver who had transported him to school. She said changing that arrangement represented “a fundamental change in the support he relied upon”. So, she argued the Council should not have made that change.
3. Mrs X said after the change took effect Y could not travel with the new provider. She therefore continued to use the previous provider paying for that service privately. In November 2025 the Council entered a new contract with the previous provider. But Mrs X said she incurred avoidable expenses for the two months between, when she met Y’s transport costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I gave Mrs X and the Council a draft version of this decision statement to comment on. I considered any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before finalising the decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and Council policy

8. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above); and
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem […]. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

9. The phrase ‘travel arrangements’ can encompass different methods of transport from home to school. For example, the use of public transport, taxi journeys or paying for parental travel expenses. They can also include the council paying for an escort or travel assistant to accompany a child. Government guidance says the arrangements must take account of the needs of the child. (Education Act 1996, 508B(4) and Government Guidance: Travel to school for children of compulsory school age 2024).
10. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and arrangements to meet them. The EHC Plan has different sections. In “exceptional circumstances” an EHC Plan may contain details of a child’s home to school transport needs, if they reflect a child’s “particular transport needs” (see SEN Code of Practice: Paragraph 9.125)
11. On its website the Council sets out its home to school transport policy. This says that where it arranges home to school transport it “cannot guarantee” a “particular provider, driver or specific vehicle”. It also cautions that arrangements may change during an academic year. It says that it awards contracts to transport providers for a maximum of five years. This too means it cannot guarantee a child will always keep the same transport provider.

The key facts

12. Y is a child of primary school age, who entered Year 6 of their education in September 2025. They have special educational needs with a diagnosis of autism.
13. The Council provides home to school transport for Y. In January 2022 it began providing transport for him by taxi, also providing him with an escort. The Council contracted with Company A which provided transport to Y using a regular driver. Over time, Y came to know and trust the driver, whom Mrs X has described as a “key figure in helping [Y] feel emotionally secure”.
14. In June 2025 the Council wrote to Mrs X to say Y’s transport arrangements would change from September 2025. Its contract with Company A to provide Y’s service would end in July. It had awarded the new contract to a different taxi provider, Company B, following a procurement exercise. So, Company B would take over Y’s home to school transport.
15. Mrs X asked if the Council could make an exception in Y’s case. She explained the trusting relationship he had with the driver from Company A. She pointed out to the Council that Y would begin his last year of primary education in September 2025. She said he would not need home to school transport after that. She said Y needed continuity with transport arrangements because of his special educational needs.
16. In July 2025 the Council replied, reiterating that its decision arose from a change of contracts. It said it could provide Mrs X with a cash allowance instead to provide home to school transport for Y. But Mrs X said the family did not have capacity to transport Y to and from school. She therefore asked again if the Council could reconsider its decision. The Council treated that further expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint.
17. In its second reply the Council recognised that some pupils found it hard when transport providers changed. But that it could never guarantee a child would keep the same transport provider. Further, that change was unavoidable during a child’s academic progress; for example, a child would not keep the same teacher during their schooling.
18. To help Y with the transition, the Council offered to arrange a meeting between Company B and Mrs X to take place before September 2025. It also said she could arrange for Y to have a travel passport. It describes this on its website as “a personalised document you fill out about your child”. It says the passport can help “start a conversation with your child’s driver, to help them understand your child's needs and preferences and how to respond”.
19. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. She reiterated her view that Y needed the continuity provided by Company A delivering his home to school transport. Mrs X also added new information about contacts her family had previously with Company B and a business associate of its operator.
20. In its final reply, sent at the start of September 2025, the Council said that Y’s EHC Plan said he needed a home to school transport service with an escort. But the Plan did not specify the arrangement had to be with a particular transport provider. So, it continued to defend its decision to change providers. It said that it expected Company B to treat details of its contract to transport Y with confidentiality. So, the company could not share Y’s data with any business associate not involved in running the company.
21. Mrs X told us that Y became distressed at the change of provider, and was “unable to travel” with Company B. She therefore arranged for Company A to transport Y to and from school as before, paying for that service privately. She said she had a meeting with the Council as part of a mediation process in mid-September 2025. She understood her concerns would go to the Council’s transport service for further consideration, but it did not reply to her again.
22. The Council told us it had no contact from Mrs X after September 2025 about Y’s home to school transport. But it learnt from Company B that Y did not use its service and this led Company B to give notice to cancel its contract, effective from the end of October 2025.
23. The Council then undertook a fresh procurement exercise to find an alternative transport provider for Y. Company A bid for the contract and was successful. So, from the beginning of November 2025 the Council contracted once more with Company A to provide Y’s home to school transport.

My findings

24. I considered this complaint in two parts. First, was there any fault in the Council’s decision to change Y’s transport provider. Either when it made that decision or in its response to Mrs X’s complaint about its decision. Second, was there any fault in the Council not reinstating transport arrangements with Company A sooner when it became clear Y did not use Company B’s service.
25. I did not find the Council at fault for changing to Y’s home to school transport arrangements. I considered first what duty the Council had to provide Y with home to school transport. I understood Y’s EHC Plan said he needed a taxi service and escort to get to and from his school from home. But it did not specify that any particular company had to provide that service. So, while I found the Council had a duty to make that provision to Y, it was not under a duty to contract with any specific company to deliver it.
26. Further, I found the Council does what it can to caution parents that a change in home to school transport providers may sometimes take place. Its home to school transport policy explains that it cannot guarantee the same arrangements over time and that it awards transport contracts for fixed time periods.
27. I considered it important the Council did this as no local authority can ever promise a parent that home to school transport arrangements might not change over time. Transport businesses may close or exercise break clauses in contracts. While individual drivers or escorts will change roles or otherwise move on. These events will inevitably impact sometimes on children.
28. I considered when its contract with Company A ended, the Council could therefore carry out a procurement exercise to consider offering the contract to a different provider. And it could change provider as a result, so long as the new contract provided for the same service. I considered the Council needed to tell Mrs X of any change in provider that resulted. But I did not think the Council needed to give any additional prior consideration to the impact of the change. I would only have found that, had the Council proposed a more significant change in Y’s transport arrangements. For example, if it had proposed removing his escort or switching the provision from a taxi service to public transport.
29. That said, when Mrs X complained about the change of provider, I still expected the Council to have considered the points she made. I considered that in exceptional circumstances it could have reviewed its decision to change Y’s transport provider.
30. The Council clearly came to the view that Mrs X had not provided it with evidence that exceptional circumstances applied here. I considered this a decision it could reasonably come to on the facts. I respected that Mrs X disagreed with the decision, but disagreement alone was not enough for me to find fault (see paragraph 3).
31. I found the Council’s replies showed it engaged with the points made by Mrs X in her complaint. It responded to each one. I also found no evidence it took account of anything irrelevant when it replied.
32. I thought it fair for the Council to have drawn an analogy with Y’s journey through school. Clearly he needed preparation for change, but change was still inevitable. I saw no reason the Council should have regarded Y’s relationship with his driver differently to that he might have with a teacher or teaching assistant. I hoped Y would have trusting relations with the adults in his life. But their identity would sometimes change. I also found this was not a decision sprung on Mrs X, but one for which she had around three months to help Y prepare for.
33. The Council also suggested ideas to try and help smooth the transition for Y as his transport moved from Company A to Company B. I thought it good practice that it offered to set up a meeting between Mrs X and Company B before September 2025. It also signposted her towards its travel passports. These suggestions showed it had listened to Mrs X’s complaint and considered it carefully. It took account that Y might need more preparation for change even though it’s decision had already allowed time for that.
34. I turned next to the events after September 2025. I did not find the Council at fault for not entering its new contract with Company A sooner.
35. First, this was because there was no evidence Company B failed to make its service available to Y.
36. Second, I considered there was insufficient evidence to find Company B was an unsuitable transport provider for Y. I considered on balance the Council knew Y did not travel with Company B. However, I considered on balance it did know this. Mrs X referred to the meeting she attended in September 2025 where she said there was discussion of Y’s transport arrangements. I also assume the Council’s escort service must have known Y did not use Company B’s service.
37. However, there was a lack of evidence to show the Council knew why Y did not travel with it. I cannot see it had information showing how often Y tried to use the service or explaining any efforts to encourage him to do so. Or if the fact he did not use the service stemmed from Mrs X’s fundamental disagreement with the Council's decision to award the contract to a new provider.
38. In these circumstances I could not say the Council had any grounds to review its contract to Company B before the end of October 2025. It followed also I could not recommend the Council refund Mrs X for money spent on Y’s transport before the Council entered its new contract with Company A from November 2025.

Back to top

Final Decision

39. For the reasons set out above I found no fault by the Council in its decision to change the home to school transport arrangements used by Y. Nor in its complaint handling, or in its response to events after September 2025. I therefore completed my investigation satisfied with its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman