Summary: There was no delay in the Council implementing school transport for Mr X’s child Y after they moved school. Therefore, the Council was not at fault. The Council was at fault for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• did not ensure Y was receiving all the specialist provision their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan;
• did not follow a lawful and reasonable process when identifying and naming a placement in the EHC Plan;
• failed to provide alternative provision after Y stopped attending school; and
• delayed implementing school transport for his child Y after they moved school.
2. Mr X said this has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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(1), as amended)
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
7. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
8. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.
9. At the end of September 2024, the Council issued a final EHC Plan naming a mainstream school which Mr X said was unsuitable. Mr X complained to the Council in June 2025 about the following:
• Between September and December 2024, Y was attending school for two hours a day so Y could not possibly have received all the specialist provision they were entitled to in their EHC Plan;
• Y stopped attending school entirely at the of March 2025 so Mr X requested interim alternative provision which the Council failed to provide; and
• The Council did not follow a lawful and reasonable process when identifying and naming a placement, including failure to properly consider consultation responses and the evidence available at the time.
10. I cannot look at any of the points listed in paragraph nine as doing so would involve looking at the Council’s decision to name a mainstream school and therefore trespassing on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Mr X was unhappy with the school placement and exercised his right to appeal this to the tribunal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr 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

Relevant law and guidance

EHC Plan

13. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an EHC Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
14. Where the SEND Tribunal requires the Council change the name of the school named in a child’s EHC Plan, it must do so within two weeks of the order.

What happened

15. Mr X has a child Y with special educational needs. In September 2024, the Council issued a final EHC Plan naming a mainstream school, school A. Mr X appealed this and in early June 2025 the tribunal ordered the Council to name a special school, school B.
16. Y started at school B the following week and the Council put in place school transport for the week after.
17. In June 2025, Mr X complained the Council had failed to make timely arrangements for transport for school B. As a result, Mr X said they were required to transport Y themselves, which included four daily journeys and caused significant disruption to employment and care for their younger child.
18. Mr X bought the matter to us in September 2025 as the Council had not responded to the complaint. The Council should have responded to the complaint within 15 workings days which can be extended to 20 working days as outlined in its complaints policy.
19. In October 2025, the Council responded apologising for the delay in addressing the complaint. In regards to arranging transport for Y it said in priority cases it commissions transport within 15 days and non-urgent cases within 20 days. The Council said it arranged Y’s transport within this timescale.
20. In November 2025, the Council decided not to consider the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure because it would not achieve any further outcome.

Council’s response to our enquiries

21. The Council has said school transport was in place seven days after Y started school. It also said there is a 20-day timescale to implement transport and the transport application could not be progressed until the school and Y’s start date had been agreed. Prior to the Council arranging transport, it said there was a parental travel allowance in place paid to Mr X from April 2025.

My findings

22. The Council could not arrange transport for Y until a school place and start date was arranged. The Council agreed the school place and the start date on 6 June, three days prior to the tribunal issuing the consent order. From 6 June, the Council had a 20-day timescale to arrange transport. The Council implemented this within 12 working days and 19 calendar days. Whilst waiting for the Council to arrange this, Mr X could use the travel allowance in place to transport Y to school. Therefore, the Council was not at fault.
23. When Mr X made his stage one complaint, it should have responded within 20 working days and by mid July at the latest. The Council did not respond until October which was a delay of three months and fault. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has apologised to Mr X which has remedied the injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman