Summary: Mr X complained the council changed his daughter’s transport arrangements which resulted in her travelling without essential equipment as the Council said the transport provider could not accommodate the equipment. We have found the Council was at fault. The Council will now take action to address the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that, on days when his daughter, Y, who has complex medical needs and is severely disabled, is collected from school to attend respite, the Council transports her between school and respite without her essential equipment. The journeys are often around two hours each way.
2. Mr X says that his daughter becomes extremely distressed during these journeys, which can result in incontinence and seizures. He also says that the family has to transport her essential equipment themselves, which reduces the time available for respite.

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 the future we may recommend 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. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Law and Guidance

8. The Children Act 1989 places duties on councils in relation to services for disabled children, including services designed to give carers breaks from caring. The Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011 include overnight care in the range of short-break services that may be provided. (Children Act 1989, Schedule 2, paragraph 6; Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011, Regulation 4.)

Essex County Council Education Transport Policy

9. The Council’s Education Transport Policy also includes a section on Overnight Short Break Transport as detailed below:
10. Some children who have complex SEN or medical needs obtain a care plan through Social Care outlining that they require a set amount of respite visits, of which Education Awards authorise transport. The transport provided is from the school to the respite home and vice versa and cannot be provided to and from the child’s home address.
11. Where a child is entitled to respite their social worker makes applications for transport, and as such the parent/carer cannot apply direct.
12. The policy also sets out an appeals procedure, saying that appeals against a refusal of assistance or the suitability of the transport provided should be made in writing and there are two stages to the appeals process.

What happened

13. The Council assessed Y as eligible for 27 nights of respite a year. Prior to September 2025, on days when Y was having respite, the Council’s transport service transported her from home to school with her equipment and then from school to her place of respite after school.
14. In September 2025, the Council changed the service. This meant Y was no longer travelling alone on respite days. The Council told her parents, due to limited space in the vehicle, the contracted service could not transport her equipment and that she would only be able to take one small bag.
15. In November 2025, Mr X complained to the Council, explaining that Y’s equipment would not fit in a small bag. The family had been asked to transport the equipment themselves, but they were unable to do so because of work and their caring responsibilities for their other children. Mr X explained the impact this was having and said that respite would not be effective if the family had to make additional journeys to transport Y’s equipment. He also said they were told that the current respite placement was the closest available carer, who had first been arranged six years previously, and that Y was very settled with her carer.
16. In early December, the Council responded to the complaint saying that the current transport arrangements had significant space limitations and that it was unable to accommodate extra luggage. The Council said it had responded under its one stage corporate complaints procedure and to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman if they remained unhappy.
17. On the same day, Mr X responded to the Council saying he did not understand the reasons behind the decision and the Council had not responded about the two-hour journey from respite to school.
18. At the end of January 2026, the Council responded and said that the passenger transport team had reviewed his enquiry and that ‘decisions regarding the suitability of the vehicle used for respite transport, including whether a larger vehicle is required to safely accommodate Y’s equipment, must be assessed and authorised by the family’s allocated social worker’.
19. The Council also said that any concerns about the length of the journey between respite and school, including what is considered an appropriate maximum duration, should be discussed with the social worker who ‘holds responsibility for the overall care plan and transport arrangements for your daughter’
20. The Social Worker emailed transport team five days after the Council’s response. She said that Y should not be in transport for longer than one hour at a time, explained the importance of having her equipment and medication with her.
21. Mr X did not receive a response from the Council, so a further email was sent to the Council in mid-March following this up and again at the end of March.
22. In mid-April, the Council’s passenger team responded to Mr X saying that when operating overnight short break transport, education transport providers are not required to carry medication, large items of luggage, medical equipment or mobility aids. It said it expected that passengers would travel with a minimum amount of luggage.
23. The Council said that overnight short break transport is usually provided on a regular shared vehicle and may result in a longer journey duration. It said it was advisable to take these transport factors into consideration when planning respite for Y.
24. Mr X responded to the Council, still unhappy with the response and towards the end of April, the Council responded saying that the Council’s Children with Disabilities Team may be able to consider an alternative way to safely transport extra luggage and also consider whether there is potential for an alternative respite carer in a different location to reduce travelling time.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me the social worker had used their professional judgement, deciding that it was important for Y’s medical equipment to travel with her and remain available when needed. It also said Y requires medication when she arrives at respite, so it is important it is with her.
26. The Council told me that the social worker had said the parents should not transport her belongings and medical equipment separately as this would mean an approximate loss of four hours respite whilst transporting belongings. It said that respite is necessary to ensure that Y’s parents can continue to manage their caring role and have 1:1 time with Y’s siblings.
27. It said that Y had remained with the same respite carers since 2024, had built a positive relationship with them and that there was a limited resource of overnight short-break carers able to meet Y’s needs. It said that, for these reasons, it had not been necessary to explore other respite carers.

My findings

28. Y is eligible for respite following a statutory assessment of her needs and in line with the Children Act 1989. Her Social Worker had assessed that Y’s respite was important for Y’s parents and that journeys should not be longer than one hour and her equipment should travel with her.
29. Although the requirement to provide home to school transport and the provision of respite arise under separate statutory frameworks, the Council has nevertheless chosen to provide transport to and from respite through its Education Transport service and has set out arrangements for this in its Education Transport Policy.
30. The Council’s policy includes provision for overnight short-break transport, but it does not explain how the Council will transport children with complex medical needs who need to travel with essential medical equipment or medication.
31. The Council’s policy also suggests that in the circumstances Mr X and Y faced, they could have appealed the decision, but the Council did not do this and instead handled it through its complaints process. This was fault.
32. The Council told Mr X that decisions about the suitability of the vehicle and the journey should be assessed and authorised by Y’s social worker. The social worker subsequently assessed that Y should not be in transport for longer than one hour and that her essential equipment and medication should travel with her. Despite this, the Council did not make arrangements to address these issues. This was fault.
33. The Council accepted that Y should not have an excessively long journey, that her essential equipment and medication should travel with her, and that respite was necessary to support her parents in their caring role. Despite this, it did not take timely action to ensure that the transport arrangements enabled Y to access her respite without her parents having to make additional journeys. This was fault.
34. The Council said that the length of the journey should be taken into account when planning Y’s respite. However, it also told me that there was a limited number of overnight short-break carers able to meet Y’s needs and that Y had developed a positive and settled relationship with her existing carer. The Council has therefore not shown that a closer suitable respite placement was reasonably available. In these circumstances, I consider the Council should have taken reasonable steps to ensure that the transport arrangements enabled Y to access her existing respite provision without an unnecessarily long journey.
35. The Council had assessed Y as needing respite and recognised that the respite was important to support her parents in their caring role. The Council should therefore have taken reasonable steps to ensure that its transport arrangements enabled Y to access that respite. Y’s parents were inconvenienced by having to raise this issue with the Council and obtain information from different Council departments to demonstrate that the arrangements were not meeting Y’s assessed needs. This caused them distress and was fault.

Back to top

Action

36. Within four weeks the Council will:
• Write to Mr X, apologising for the delay in resolving his complaint and the distressed caused to him and his family. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Mr X.
• Make a symbolic payment of £350 to acknowledge the injustice that has been caused by its administration failings and the distress caused to Y’s parents.
• Review Y’s current respite transport arrangements without delay and take appropriate action to ensure that the arrangements properly take account of her assessed needs, including the need to travel with her essential medical equipment and medication and the social worker’s assessment that journeys should not exceed one hour.
37. Within twelve weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council should:
• Review its Education Transport Policy and make clear how it will assess and arrange transport for children receiving overnight short breaks where they need to travel with essential medical equipment or medication.
• The Council should also clarify that children’s social care is responsible for deciding whether the vehicle and journey are suitable for the child’s assessed needs and ensure that its appeals procedure is clearly explained and followed when parents challenge the suitability of respite transport.
38. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things

Back to top

Decision

39. The Council was at fault. This caused injustice to Y’s parents, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman