Summary: Mr F complained about the way the Council changed his son’s home to school transport in 2025. We found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained that the Council changed his son’s home to school transport without consultation and without properly considering safety and medical needs. He says this caused his son anxiety and distress, affecting his sleep.

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 recommend 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mr F came to us in October 2025. I have investigated the period September 2024 to October 2025. This is because our policy says we will not investigate issues beyond the date when the complaint was submitted to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr F 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

7. 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 made and provided 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. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)
8. The statutory guidance, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age, says councils must make travel arrangements that meet the individual needs of the child. Transport should be safe, comfortable and not cause undue stress or difficulty. Councils should consider factors such as a child’s special educational needs, disability, medical needs and mobility. They decide on transport on a case-by-case basis and should provide any necessary support such as a passenger assistant. Councils should review arrangements if a child’s needs change. Councils should carry out risk assessments where needed, but the guidance says it is unlikely that all children will require an individual risk assessment.
9. A good practice guide for local authorities on the use of seatbelt buckle guards (angel clips) recognises that seatbelt buckle guards are sometimes used for children with additional needs who may unfasten their seatbelts during transport. It says councils should assess each child's needs individually and carry out a risk assessment.

What happened

10. Mr F’s son, J, has autism and an education, health and care (EHC) plan. In July 2024, Mr F applied for home to school transport. The application says J needed close supervision, air conditioning to prevent overheating, space from other children, and trained staff to support his health, safety, communication, and vulnerability. J travelled to school in a taxi with one other child and a personal assistant. He sat in the front of the car.
11. In January 2025 the taxi operator asked if J could sit in the rear of the car to prevent him distracting the driver. In July, Mr F told the Council he was concerned the taxi crew was walking J to the door of the house which was putting J at risk of absconding. He also said the air conditioning was not cold enough, putting him at risk of heatstroke. The Council advised the taxi operator that J should remain in the vehicle until a parent came to escort him to the house.
12. The taxi operator asked the Council if it could merge two of its contracts from September. This would mean a larger, 8 seat vehicle would be used with five children.
13. The Council checked if the new vehicle had air conditioning. It considered J’s needs set out in his EHC plan, the collection time, journey time and that the crew and personal assistant would remain the same. The Council decided the new transport arrangement was suitable for J (and the other children) and agreed to the arrangement.
14. The Council advised Mr F of the change on 14 August. Mr F complained. He was concerned that the adult child ratio would increase from 1:3 to 1:5, that the journey time would be longer than 45 minutes and that the minibus would not be able to park on his driveway. He said there had been incidents in July and the last time J was in a minibus his tablet had been stolen. Mr F noted that J had already had to be moved to the rear of the car and the taxi operator had also had to use an angel clip due to safety needs.
15. The Council replied to the complaint on 29 August. It said it had raised Mr F's concerns about the risk of absconding with the taxi operator and had advised that J should remain in the vehicle. Any incidents would be monitored by the personal assistant and should be reported to the Council. The Council said there were no legally binding guidelines for the length of journey and specialist provision may exceed the 45-minute guideline. The collection time would be the same and the vehicle was not required to park on the driveway. The Council said the taxi crew and personal assistant would remain the same and were aware of the J's needs. The Council considered the transport arrangement to be suitable.
16. J's final EHC plan was issued. It said J required air conditioning and must not be let out of the vehicle unless a parent was present.
17. Mr F complained that the Council had refused to call him to discuss the issue. He emailed the council on 4 September saying the angel clip had not been used that day which was a safety risk for J. The Council replied that it had not received a request from the taxi operator to use the angel clip. It had asked for an urgent risk assessment to determine if the angel clip was necessary and proportionate.
18. A risk assessment was then carried out it. It was recommended the angel clip should be used in the afternoons. The Council says Mr F then advised it should be used every journey.
19. The Council's final complaint response was issued on 18 September. It said it had responded in writing rather than by phone to provide a paper trail and consistency. The taxi operator had now been issued with an angel clip and instructed to use it on all journeys. It was for the taxi operator to decide if it was safe to park on the driveway.
20. On 26 September, Mr F raised concerns that J was being seated between the personal assistant and another child. He also said he had not asked for the angel clip to be used; the taxi operator had started using it without his consent. Mr F had seen no request to reapply it at the start of this term. Mr F said he was considering reporting the matter to the LADO. The Council contacted the LADO who said the matter did not meet their threshold.
21. The Council discussed the seating arrangements with the taxi operator. It contacted J's school who said J arrived at school in good spirits. On 8 October the Council carried out a site visit, observing J boarding the minibus. It found he boarded without incident and travelled well. The Council asked the taxi operator to change seating plan so that there was a gap next to J. The operator agreed to this.

My findings

22. Mr F complains he was not consulted about the changes to J's transport from September 2025. The Council was not required to consult the parent or carry out a risk assessment. There is evidence that when the taxi operator asked to change the arrangements the Council considered J’s special educational needs, disability, medical needs and mobility. It also considered the collection time, journey time, and the continuity of the crew. It decided the new arrangements were suitable transport. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made this decision, I therefore cannot criticise it.
23. In relation to the angel clip, the evidence shows the Council was unaware that one had been used until it was advised by Mr F in September 2025. This is not fault by the Council. Mr F had agreed to it being used and once the Council became aware, it carried out a risk assessment. This is in line with the good practice guide. I do not find any fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Decision

24. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman