The Investigation

The complaints

Mrs K

1. Mrs K complained about her children’s school transport including late and missed pick-ups, lack of consistency, ignoring instructions to safeguard her children and about an incident when one of her children went missing.

2. Mrs K said the Council’s failure to provide adequate school transport affected her children’s education. It also caused her distress.

Mrs X

3. Mrs X complained about the unsuitability of travel arrangements to educational providers for her son Y who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and received Education Otherwise than at School. She said on several occasions in mid-September transport did not turn up. She also raised safeguarding concerns, including frequent changes of the drivers.

4. Mrs X said the Council’s failings caused significant anxiety to Y. She said she spent a lot of time trying to resolve transport issues with the Council and was increasingly distressed by its multiple failings.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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)

6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended)

7. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

8. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

9. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

10. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this report with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Transport for children of compulsory school age to schools and alternative providers arranged by councils

11. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend the ‘relevant educational establishment in relation to them’. This is either the ‘qualifying school’ at which the child is registered or the place, other than a school, where the child is receiving education as a result of arrangements made under the Education Act 1996, section 19(1). The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge.

12. Councils must ensure that the travel arrangements they make take account of the needs of the child concerned. The arrangements should enable the child to travel in reasonable safety and comfort, and without undue stress, strain or difficulty, so that wherever possible they arrive at school ready to learn. Some children may need particular arrangements to be made to meet their needs. (Statutory guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ of January 2024, paragraphs 81, 82 and 84)

13. A child’s needs may need to be reassessed from time to time, for example if their level of need changes or if they move to a new school. Some children with special educational needs can find change distressing. Councils should provide parents with as much notice as possible of any changes to a child’s travel arrangements. (Statutory guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ of January 2024, paragraph 85)

14. Health and safety law requires councils to put in place reasonably practicable control measures to protect their employees and others (including the children for whom they arrange travel) from harm. They must:

• identify hazards;

• assess the risk;

• put in place proportionate measures to eliminate the hazard or control the risk;

• record their findings; and

• regularly review and update their risk assessments.

(Statutory guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ of January 2024, paragraph 86)

15. Councils should decide what is reasonably practicable in each case. They may consider that an individual risk assessment is required for some children. When making decisions they should consider:

• the medical needs of the children and the likelihood of them requiring emergency medical assistance;

• children’s behaviour – including where this is related to their special educational needs or disability – and the likelihood of this causing harm to them or others while travelling;

• the safety of children while travelling on the vehicle and while boarding and alighting; and

• the safe loading and tethering of wheelchairs.

(Statutory guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ of January 2024, paragraphs 88 and 89)

Transport for children with Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) (also called Education Otherwise Than in School or College (EOTIS/C))

16. A council may arrange for any special educational provision that it has decided is necessary for a child or young person for whom it is responsible to be made otherwise than in a school. (Children and Families Act 2014 section 61(1))

17. The council has a duty to secure special educational provision specified in an EHC Plan for the child or young person. (Children and Families Act S.42)

18. The Courts have said this duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if a council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains responsible. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62, R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)

Equality Act 2010

19. A person has a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment and this impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. (Section 6(1))

20. The Equality Act 2010 requires local authorities to comply with the public sector equality duty. This means they must consider how their school travel decisions and policies affect people with protected characteristics, and must have regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination against people with protected characteristics;

• promote equality of opportunity between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not; and

• foster good relations between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not.

21. Advancing equality of opportunity involves having due regard to the need to:

• remove or reduce disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic; and

• meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic where those needs differ from the needs of persons who do not share it.

The Council’s guide to SEND transport for parents and carers

22. This says that all drivers will:

• be aware of the protocols for safeguarding children and emergency procedures; and

• have been briefed on the needs of children they will be transporting.

23. If the usual driver is not available a different driver will be sent who will have the same level of training and have been informed of the needs of the children and young people on the vehicle.

24. The transport provider is responsible for knowing the start and end times of the school day and term dates. Parents should be aware that the service provider cannot accommodate individual circumstances.

The Council’s EOTIS/C current position

25. ‘EOTIS/C in Essex: The Current Position’ document states: “Where a child with an EHC Plan is attending educational provision other than at a school (and that provision has been identified as part of delivering the EHC Plan), transport can be provided to an eligible child if the distance from the home to the provision is 2 miles or more for a child aged up to 8, and 3 miles or more for a child aged 8 and above. It is important to note, however, that there is no guarantee of transport being provided to multiple locations during the week, or between different locations during the school day nor is transport usually provided outside of the normal school times. Any request for transport will be considered under the Council’s Education Transport Policy and the law on school transport.”

How we considered this complaint

26. We have produced this report after talking to Mrs K and Mrs X and examining the relevant files and documents.

27. We gave Mrs K and Mrs X, the Council and the transport company 24x7 a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

What happened in Mrs K’s case L’s transport

28. L is of primary school age. She is on the roll of a mainstream school but has not attended it for the last few years. She has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan which states that she seeks predictability within her environment and has difficulties with adapting to changes in routine. She has impaired ability to manage and respond to sensory input, which can result in dysregulation. When dysregulated she may become physical towards her peers and adults. The Council arranged for L to attend an alternative education provider offering bespoke education therapeutic support for children and young people (the Alternative Provider).

29. The Council commissioned transport company 24x7 (the Transport company) to provide transport for L to the Alternative Provider. In November 2025 L was twice not collected from home by the Transport company.

30. There was also an incident in November 2025 when two different drivers arrived to collect L. On this particular day 20 minutes after a driver (Driver 1) collected L to take her to the Alternative Provider another driver (Driver 2) arrived to pick her up. Mrs K was confused as her other child, M, also needed to be taken to school. Mrs K called the Transport company office and was told it was Driver 2 who was supposed to collect L. Driver 1 could not be contacted or located, to the point Mrs K considered calling the Police. After more than 30 minutes, Driver 1 was reached and confirmed they left L at her Alternative Provider’s reception.

31. The Transport company explained that the situation described above happened when L’s usual driver was unavailable and the Transport company used another transport provider for L. Through an administrative error two drivers were assigned to take her to her educational setting on this particular day.

32. In response to Mrs K’s complaint the Transport company stated that, because L attended the Alternative Provider, her transport was arranged as a mileage contract. Under the mileage contract the Transport company receives schedules weekly and settles routes in the most cost-effective way. Because of this drivers and routes differ from week to week.

M’s transport

33. M is of secondary school age and attends an independent special school. He was diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Oppositional Defiant Behaviour. When dysregulated M lacks awareness of danger.

34. The Council commissioned the Transport company to provide school transport for M. The Transport company at first offered M transport shared with younger children. After Mrs K’s intervention and appeal, the Council and the Transport company accepted this was not suitable for him. Mrs K had to take M to and from his school for over two weeks until the Transport company made alternative suitable transport arrangements in the third week of September.

35. Drivers taking M to school and bringing him back did not comply with his communication needs. There were changes to the route and excessive journey times. He did not have consistent drivers. This meant that when arriving at school he was dysregulated and disruptive. This situation continued throughout the autumn term in 2025.

36. When Mrs K told the Transport company that she was unhappy with the transport arrangements for her children, it told her she could not complain as all its drivers had Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificates. DBS certificates are issued by the service which carries out criminal record checks to support safer recruitment.

37. Mrs K complained to the Council about the transport provided. Following that complaint from the beginning of January 2026 the Transport company assigned new drivers for L and M. Although this was an improvement, Mrs K could see how the previous failings continued to have a negative impact on M.

What happened in Mrs X’s case

38. Y has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). He presents with emotional and social communication difficulties. He also has severe anxiety about attending school.

39. From the beginning of September 2025, the Council’s offer of education for Y changed and was for:

• three days a week of personalised educational services for children with diverse neurodivergent needs (Provider 1); and

• one day a week of animal assisted therapy and outdoor learning (Provider 2). Before this, Y was attending Provider 1 for two days and Provider 2 for two days.

40. The Council commissioned the Transport company to provide transport for Y to Provider 2 on Mondays and to Provider 1 on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. The Transport company missed one trip at the beginning of September and Y did not attend Provider 1 on this day.

41. In the fourth week of September Mrs X complained about the missed trips and different drivers coming every day. On one occasion, she said, when reversing from Mrs X’s drive, a driver had nearly hit a car on the main road. This upset Y. Mrs X said the frequent changes in drivers had been increasing Y’s anxiety which had showed itself in obsessive hand washing. Y needed consistency and routine. Mrs X asked for a consistent driver for Y, timely notice of any changes and a risk assessment for Y’s transport.

42. Later in September Mrs X told the Council Y would not attend Provider 1 as during the journey back on the previous day Y’s driver had unexpectedly changed the route. Mrs X stressed the importance of regular transport arrangements for Y, because of his needs stemming from ASD.

43. The Council’s transport team replied to Mrs X saying that although transport providers were trying to keep consistency of the travel arrangements, some changes were unavoidable. This was due to new passengers being added or existing passengers changing their address. Sickness and other personal events were also affecting drivers, making changes necessary.

44. At the beginning of October 2025, the Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint. It said it had been aware of the problems with the Transport company and had been trying to improve their services. It would take further steps, if necessary.

45. Mrs X did not send Y to Provider 1 in the first week of October. He was getting increasingly anxious about the lack of consistent transport arrangements and also had a cold.

46. In the first week of October, Mrs X and the Council exchanged correspondence about Y’s education package. Mrs X reminded the Council about the outcome of the recent Annual Review of his EHC Plan during which one out of two days with Provider 2 was replaced by extra sessions with Provider 1. Mrs X sent a weekly timetable of Y’s educational sessions to the Council, which had been in place since the beginning of September 2025. This clarified that Y was attending Provider 1 three days a week and Provider 2 one day a week.

47. Three days later Mrs X contacted the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), raising safeguarding issues about Y’s transport. The LADO is responsible for overseeing concerns, allegations or incidents involving individuals working with children and young people. Mrs X did not receive any response to her concerns.

48. In mid-October 2025 the Council confirmed that it would be providing transport to Provider 1 three times a week.

49. The Council communicated internally about Y’s EOTAS package and whether it should continue to arrange transport to Provider 2. There was an extra cost of this transport as Y’s sessions took place outside normal school hours. As a result of the Education Awards team’s initial refusal to authorise extra costs, in late November Y’s transport to Provider 2 was withdrawn and Y missed one session.

50. At the end of November 2025 Mrs X complained about the withdrawal of transport to Provider 2 on Mondays. The Council’s officer apologised for the confusion and stated it would urgently ask the Transport team to reinstate transport. These trips, the officer said, should never have been cancelled.

51. In its response to our enquiries the Transport company explained that it had been providing transport to Y under the mileage contract, as described in paragraph 32. This is because Y was accessing education in two different centres each week.

Others potentially affected by the Transport company failings

52. We are aware that the Council has received a significant number of complaints about the Transport company since September 2025. In the autumn term 2025 there were over 90 complaints and in the first two months of 2026 the Council received over 20 complaints. Many complaints are about similar issues to those found in our investigations. This shows that the Transport company’s failings we identified have potentially affected many more families.

The Council’s Performance Improvement Plan for the Transport company

53. The Council told us that from February 2025 the Transport company had introduced a Performance Improvement Plan. The Council held weekly meetings to monitor the effectiveness of the plan, which aimed to address:

• staff shortages and sickness;

• internal and external communication; and

• inefficiency of the process.

54. In October 2025 the Transport company reviewed its original Performance Improvement Plan. Although some improvement had been achieved in the last months of the school year 2024/2025, the number of complaints received from the beginning of the new school year in September 2025 showed there were still significant problems. The Council has been continuing weekly monitoring meetings with the Transport company.

Analysis

Mrs K’s complaint

55. As explained in paragraph 11 of this report, councils have the same duties when arranging transport to qualifying schools and to alternative education providers, which they organise under their Section 19 duty. The law requires councils to make suitable home to school travel arrangements. They should:

• consider the individual needs of the child concerned to ensure the child travels in reasonable safety and comfort and without undue stress; and

• decide whether they should carry out a risk assessment to protect staff providing the transport service and other children using this service.

56. When councils commission companies to provide services on their behalf, they remain responsible for the quality of these services.

57. In response to our enquiries the Council said that before setting up transport for a child with an EHC Plan the Council:

• gives the Transport company risk assessment information taken from the child’s EHC Plan; any changes are supported by training for the Transport company staff;

• uses the Transport company’s system to notify it of any specific information received from the parents; and

• ensures the assigned driver and any accompanying passenger assistant (or their relief) can access the child passenger’s profile.

58. When arranging transport for Mrs K’s children, L and M, the Transport company failed to consider the individual needs of her children.

59. The Transport company provided transport for L under a “mileage contract” described in paragraph 32 above. These can involve regular changes to routes and drivers. There is no evidence that when making travel arrangements the Transport company considered L’s difficulties in adapting to changes to routines, as set out in her EHC Plan.

60. The Council failed to complete a risk assessment for M and pass the information to the Transport company. Although it is for the Council to decide when it needs to do so, it should consider the individual circumstances of each case. There is no evidence the Council considered M’s behaviour when dysregulated and the potential impact of it on other passengers especially younger children. It was left to Mrs K to highlight that the proposed shared transport did not meet M’s needs.

61. There is no evidence of the Transport company considering M’s difficulties with changes to his routine stemming from his ASD. Changes to M’s travel arrangements happened regularly and without notice and caused him distress.

62. The incident described in paragraph 30 shows the Transport company’s failure to run an effective allocation system for the replacement drivers. When commissioning another company to provide transport, the Transport company remains responsible for the quality of this service. It is unacceptable to send two drivers to collect one child and not make it clear who will collect a sibling. Parents should also know who will be taking their child to school or bringing them back.

Mrs X’s complaint

63. Councils’ transport duties for children with EHC Plans who receive EOTAS stem from their duties to ensure delivery of special educational provision specified in Section F of these children’s EHC Plans rather than the Education Act 1996 Sections 508B, 508C and Schedule 35B.

64. The Council has explained how it approaches transport for children with EOTAS in the document quoted in paragraph 25 of this report. The Council specifies that transport to alternative educational providers can be provided for eligible children and refers to the process set out in its Education Transport Policy.

65. At no point did the Council query Y’s eligibility for transport to Providers 1 and 2. Although not named in Section F, the Council had agreed them as part of Y’s educational package and accepted it would provide transport.

66. When delivering transport to Y the Council failed by:

• not delivering a reliable service. The Transport company providing services for the Council missed collecting Y or turned up late;

• delaying finalising arrangements for Y’s transport in line with his weekly timetable. From the beginning of September 2025, the Transport company had the details of Y’s weekly timetable and started providing transport accordingly. At the beginning of October there was some confusion and Mrs X sent details of Y’s educational schedule to the Council. A month and a half later, at the end of November, the Council confirmed amended transport arrangements for Y. This shows inadequacy of communication between various teams of the Council and the Transport company;

• a lack of consideration for Mrs X’s request to arrange transport for Y, which would consider his specific needs. In the second part of September 2025 Mrs X told the Council about Y’s difficulties caused by certain aspects of his travel arrangements but the Council and the Transport company failed to consider them to decide whether they needed to adapt the transport service offered to him; and

• not responding to Mrs X’s safeguarding concerns which she raised at the beginning of October.

67. The way the Council has been securing delivery of transport services for children receiving EOTAS, but also more widely children with special educational needs, fails to show due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty. This is because:

• for certain children, such as children with EOTAS packages and who are educated by alternative providers, the Transport company uses a “mileage contract” which means that travel arrangements change from week to week. Councils only agree EOTAS for children who, because of the complexity of their needs, cannot be educated in any school. Many of these children have various forms of anxiety and need consistency of arrangements. Some of these children may be disabled. Having a system in place which assumes frequent changes of travel arrangements shows disregard for these children’s need for consistency. This system also does not allow adaptations for the needs of individual children;

• ‘The Council’s guide to SEND transport for parents and carers’ states that parents should be aware the service provider cannot accommodate individual circumstances. This is not in line with the Statutory guidance referred to in paragraph 12. Failure to consider individual circumstances may result in the service being inaccessible for some children who are eligible for transport.

68. In our Focus Report ‘Equal access: Getting it right for people with disabilities’ published in May 2022 we have said: “Local public services must take account of the needs of different people when designing and delivering services. As well as meeting their legal obligations under the Equality Act, this careful consideration is part of basic good administrative practice. Services that properly consider a service user’s needs in their design and delivery are much more likely to be effective and efficient at achieving the desired outcomes”.

69. The duty described above is anticipatory which means that councils must consider in advance what people with disabilities might reasonably need. By ensuring the Transport company had the right process in place, the Council should have tried to remove or minimise difficulties with transport experienced by the children with disabilities and to meet their needs. In accepting the Transport company arrangements for the “mileage contracts” the Council failed to have regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty.

Conclusions

Mrs K’s complaint

70. The Council’s failings listed in paragraphs 60, 61 and 62 are fault because the Council failed to:

• consider the individual needs of L and M when arranging transport for them;

• ensure the Transport company runs an effective driver allocation system; and

• carry out a risk assessment for M.

71. The Council’s failure to ensure that the transport provided to L and M took account of their needs listed in their EHC Plans, and explained by Mrs K, caused injustice to them. The frequent changes to their school journeys affected their readiness to learn. For M any changes would have increased his dysregulation and contributed to his difficulties at school which meant he needed two members of staff to support him. Mrs K told us the previous failings continued to have a negative impact on M.

72. The Council’s fault also caused injustice to Mrs K. She was increasingly distressed by the frequent failings of the Transport company and their disregard for her children’s needs. At times when transport arrangements failed, she had to provide transport for her children herself. This was challenging as L’s Alternative Provider and M’s school are in different directions from their home address.

73. The Council’s failure to ensure the Transport company ran an effective and robust system of driver allocation caused injustice to Mrs K. For over half an hour she did not know where her daughter was and what was happening to her. Mrs K’s anxiety and emotional distress were so high that she was thinking of contacting the Police. After the incident, for many weeks she was afraid this would happen again.

74. The Council’s failure to complete a risk assessment for M and to pass the information to the Transport company caused injustice to Mrs K. For over two weeks in September 2025 she had to provide transport for M as the transport offered by the Transport company was not suitable. This should not have been necessary and was disruptive to her as she had a young baby.

Mrs X’s complaint

75. The Council’s failings listed in paragraph 66 are fault because the Council failed to:

• deliver a reliable transport service for Y to his alternative education providers;

• make arrangements for Y’s transport to Provider 2 in a timely manner:

• consider Mrs X’s request for arranging transport for Y which would take into account his specific needs; and

• respond to Mrs X’s safeguarding concerns.

76. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y as his transport to alternative providers was more stressful than it would have been if not for the Council’s and the Transport company’s failings. Y missed a few sessions because of problems with transport. On two occasions the Transport company failed to provide transport and several times Mrs X considered Y was too anxious to travel.

77. The Council’s fault also caused injustice to Mrs X. She spent a lot of time contacting the Council and the Transport company to try to ensure reliable and suitable travel arrangements for Y. She had no notice when the Transport company failed to turn up. She asked the Council to consider Y’s individual needs and either received no response or the responses failed to address her concerns. She is left uncertain about whether her safeguarding concerns were valid. This lack of accountability caused Mrs X significant distress.

Service improvement

78. The Council did not include in the Transport company Performance Improvement Plan all the issues identified in this investigation. The main area not addressed by the Improvement Plan is adapting the Transport company process of arranging transport to respond to the children’s individual needs, including those stemming from their disabilities.

79. The Transport company told us that from September 2025 it had introduced a system of notifying parents of any changes to the transport arrangements through a specific application. For parents without access to the application the Transport company uses different methods of communication. The Transport company’s failure to adequately communicate changes in transport arrangements after September 2025 show the continuing shortcomings of this system.

Recommendations

80. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the Transport company and make the following recommendations to the Council.

81. To remedy the injustice identified in this report we recommend the Council should within four weeks of the date of this report:

Mrs K

• apologise to Mrs K, and her children L and M for the injustice caused to them by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology we have recommended;

• pay Mrs K mileage allowance for any mornings and/or afternoons that the transport company 24x7 failed to provide transport to the Alternative Provider and M’s school and Mrs K provided transport herself, this reimbursement should be for the full distance driven by Mrs K to and from her home on each trip; and

• pay Mrs K £100 to recognise the distress caused to her by the Council’s failings in transporting her two children, L and M, to their education settings identified in this investigation.

Mrs X

• apologise to Mrs X and her child Y for the injustice caused to them by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology we have recommended;

• hold a meeting or a telephone call with Mrs X and the transport company 24x7 to discuss Y’s specific needs relevant to any transport arrangements and the way the service arranged by the Council can respond to them. The Council will send us notes from this meeting or telephone call;

• respond to Mrs X’s safeguarding concerns from the beginning of October 2025. The Council will send us a copy of this response; and

• pay Mrs X £50 to recognise the distress caused to her by the Council’s failings identified in this investigation.

82. The Council should also within six months of the date of this report complete the following:

• meet with the transport company 24x7 and take appropriate steps to assure itself that when 24x7 needs to allocate replacement drivers or commission another transport company in cases of sickness or other emergencies:

  • parents are notified of the details of a replacement driver; and

  • replacement drivers have details of any relevant needs for children for whom they are providing services;

• ensure when commissioning delivery of transport the Council has a process in place to ensure it passes on relevant information on the children’s needs from their EHC Plans, which will be recorded on the Transport company’s system.

As part of the process the Council will regularly check the Transport company records;

• set out clear criteria for triggering risk assessments for children eligible for transport and ensure the outcomes are recorded and passed on to the commissioned transport company;

• work with the transport company 24x7 to ensure there is a process for considering whether any reasonable adjustments are necessary due to a child’s disabilities. The Council will send us details of the agreed process;

• amend the Performance Improvement Plan for the transport company 24x7 to address the failings identified in this report; and

• amend ‘The Council’s guide to SEND transport for parents and carers’ to make it compliant with the Statutory guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ of January 2024. The Council will send us details of any amendments.

The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

83. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

Decision

84. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to take the action identified in paragraphs 81 to 83 to remedy that injustice and to prevent injustice being caused to others by similar faults.

Print this page