Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s response to concerns about her son’s school transport. She complains he missed 172 days of school as a result of the Council’s failure to make suitable alternative arrangements.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X set out her complaint to us in detail. I have carefully considered everything she said, although I have not included every detail here. We have limited resources, so I have focussed my attention on what I consider to be the core issue. I have included as few details as possible in my decision statement to protect the anonymity of Ms X and her son.

What happened

6. The Council arranged home to school transport for Ms X’s son by taxi.
7. There was an incident in summer 2025 involving the taxi driver. Ms X said she was no longer wiling to deal with the taxi firm. She said drivers were repeatedly late and had been rude to her. She refused to send her son to school in the taxi.
8. The Council conducted a safeguarding investigation. Following a threat of Judicial Review from solicitors representing Ms X’s son, the Council offered a different driver. It also offered a personal travel budget so Ms X could arrange transport herself. The Council said it expected Ms X’s son to return to school.
9. Ms X’s son did not return to school. Another two terms passed. The Council reviewed his education, health and care (EHC) plan and decided he could attend a different school. The Council declined to provide transport as the new school is close to Ms X’s home. Ms X is unhappy with her son’s new EHC plan and the Council’s refusal to provide transport to his new school.

Consideration

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to concerns about her son’s school transport. The Council proposed alternative arrangements. When Ms X’s son did not return to school, the Council reviewed his education, health and care plan and proposed changes. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about the changes to her son’s EHC plan because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal. And we cannot investigate her complaint about the Council's decision not to provide transport to her son’s new school because she has not yet appealed the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman