Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide suitable school transport for her son, Y. Mrs X says this distressed her and her family and caused Y to miss education and provision in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for not issuing written transport decisions, not properly applying the transport appeals process and failing to deliver education and provision in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X the financial remedy it offered in response to our enquiries.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable school transport for her son, Y. She said this distressed Y and his family and Y missed education and EHC Plan provision.

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)
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 read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

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 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. ‘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);
• 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;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

9. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.

The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:

• Stage 1: review by a senior officer. Within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision, a senior officer reviews the original decision and sends the parent a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review setting out the nature of the decision, how the review was conducted, what was taken into account, the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage 2; and
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request, for an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about appealing to us.

(Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

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 what arrangements should be made to meet them.
11. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
12. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
13. The Council’s home to school travel policy for children with an EHC Plan says:
• It will identify children who need appropriate travel solutions and arrange travel assistance where necessary
• It will annually review a child’s travel assistance
• It has adopted the Department of Education’s recommended appeal procedure
14. The Council has a two stage corporate complaints procedure saying it will respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days and a stage two complaint within 20 working days.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. Mrs X’s son, Y, has an EHC Plan and attends school.
17. In November 2024, the Council’s home to school transport review panel decided the Council should provide a private taxi with a passenger assistant to Y. The panel said the Council should review Y’s transport again in May to June 2025.
18. In May 2025, Y’s school told the Council it had concerns about Y’s behaviour in the taxi. The school said Mrs X told it she was happy for Y to get the bus to school instead.
19. The Council changed Y’s transport from taxi to bus. Mrs X immediately complained to the Council saying the bus was not suitable for Y. One day later, the Council reinstated taxi transport for Y.
20. In June 2025 the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said it changed Y’s school transport following contact by the school and accepted it had not properly involved his parents in the decision. It said it would fully discuss any future changes to Y’s transport arrangements with his parents beforehand. The Council also said Mrs X should re-apply for Y’s school transport for the new 2025/26 school year and it would try to continue Y’s taxi arrangements.
21. In August 2025 the Council told Mrs X it had completed her school transport application for Y and it would send confirmation letters to her. It also asked Mrs X to complete an essential information form. Later that month Mrs X sent the completed form to the Council and asked for details of transport timings. The Council told her the times when a bus would collect Y in the morning and then drop him home after school.
22. In September 2025 the Council started providing bus transport for Y to get to school.
23. In mid-September 2025 there were incidents when Y was distressed and refusing to get on the bus and where staff had to intervene when he left his seat while the bus was moving.
24. Mrs X immediately complained to the Council saying it had wrongly changed Y’s school transport from taxi to bus without any discussion with Y’s parents and no right of appeal. Mrs X wanted the Council to reinstate Y’s taxi transport.
25. The Council replied the following day saying the bus transport met Y’s needs and it would not offer taxi transport. It offered to make direct transport payments to Mrs X to help fund her own travel arrangements for Y.
26. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and immediately asked it to escalate the complaint. Mrs X said Y was refusing to get on the bus.
27. Two days later, Y’s school asked the Council to resume taxi transport for Y because he was missing school. Shortly afterwards, Mrs X’s advocate wrote to the Council saying Y was not attending school because Mrs X could not get him onto the bus.
28. In October 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response to Mrs X. It said it had carried out a full risk assessment before changing Y’s school transport from taxi to bus. It said it had consulted Y’s parents about the change and told them about their right of appeal. The Council partly upheld Mrs X’s complaint saying recent incidents indicated bus transport may not meet Y’s needs. It said it would reassess Y’s school transport arrangements.
29. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s complaint response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She said she wanted the Council to apologise, make a financial payment and apply the transport appeal decision throughout Y’s school placement.
30. In November 2025, the Council reinstated Y’s taxi transport.
31. In response to our enquiries, the Council accepted it had not told Y’s parents its reasons for switching him to bus transport and not given a formal right of appeal. It accepted it had failed to reassess Y’s transport needs in September 2025 and failed to provide any interim transport. The Council said, in its enquiry response, it was prepared to offer Mrs X a financial remedy of £6,000 for inconvenience, distress and Y’s missed education and EHC Plan provision.

My findings

32. Paragraphs 8 and 13 say the Council should make suitable home to school travel available for eligible children. Paragraph 9 says the Council should give parents a right of appeal against its travel support decisions. The Council provided taxi transport for Y during the 2024/25 school year following a school transport review panel decision in November 2024. It briefly switched Y to bus transport in May 2025 but immediately switched back to taxi provision. It told Mrs Y any future changes in Y’s transport provision would be fully discussed and checked with his parents before starting. The Council then decided to change Y to bus transport from September 2025. I have seen no evidence the Council discussed this change with Y’s parents as it confirmed it would in its earlier complaint response. I have also seen no evidence the Council gave a written decision to Y’s parents with details of their right of appeal. This is fault. This caused uncertainty and distress for Mrs X and Y and denied them a right of appeal.
33. Paragraph 13 says the Council will annually review a child’s travel assistance. The school transport review panel decision in November 2024 said the Council should review Y’s transport in May to June 2025. The Council was entitled to review Y’s transport provision during 2025. The Council was not at fault in doing so.
34. Paragraph 9 summarises the Department of Education’s two stage transport appeals process. Paragraph 13 confirms the Council’s home to school policy has adopted this appeals process. In mid-September 2025 both Mrs X and Y’s school told the Council bus transport was not suitable for Y. The Council did not consider this under the two stage school transport appeals process set down in paragraph 9. Instead, the Council dealt with it via its corporate complaints procedure. It did not reassess Y’s school transport arrangements until after it had responded to stage two of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council failed to follow the appeals process in its home to school policy. This is fault. This frustrated and distressed Mrs X and Y.
35. Paragraph 11 says the Council had a duty to make sure Y received the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan. Paragraph 12 says the Council had a duty to arrange suitable alternative educational provision for Y if he was unable to attend school. Y did not attend school from mid-September 2025 to early November 2025 due to the Council not providing suitable transport for him. The Council failed to deliver Y’s EHC Plan provision and did not make suitable alternative educational provision for Y. This is fault. Y missed six weeks of education and EHC Plan provision.
36. I have not made any service improvements recommendations. There is nothing in this complaint to suggest the fault arose due to wider systemic failure in the Council.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs X by the faults the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for failing to provide written notification of transport decisions and appeal rights, not properly applying the transport appeals process and failing to deliver education and EHC Plan provision to Y. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mrs X the financial remedy it offered to pay her in response to our enquiries.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mrs X and Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman