Summary: The Council was not at fault for failing to arrange transport to Mr Y’s therapy provision for the 24/25 or 25/26 academic year. The Council however was at fault for not adequately communicating its decision. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Mr Y for the uncertainty, avoidable distress and missed specialist provision this caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange transport for Mr Y, who has special educational needs. She stated Mr Y depends on this transport to access the special educational provision outlined in his Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. She explained the Council’s failure to provide transport caused Mr Y avoidable distress and prevented him from accessing the support he requires. As a result, his condition worsened, which also caused her significant distress.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to arrange transport in line with the law.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated what happened between January 2024 when the Council started funding Mr Y’s transport, and May 2025 when the Council sent its final complaint response to Mrs X.
5. I have not investigated events prior to January 2024 because Mrs X used her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal against the content in Mr Y’s EHC Plan and she told us the Council’s decision to start funding transport to Mr Y’s provision was linked to the Tribunal decision. In line with paragraph 8 below this puts the period prior to January 2024 outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
9. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
10. 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)
11. 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

12. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mrs 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

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

14. Some children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities will have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The EHC Plan identifies a child’s education, health and social needs and sets out the extra support needed to meet those needs.
15. 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)
16. If a person disagrees with the content of an EHC Plan or an amended EHC Plan, they have a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal.

Content of an EHC Plan

17. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

SEND tribunal

18. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Transport costs for adult learners

19. Councils must arrange for the transport it considers necessary for an adult with an EHC plan to attend their education or training placement. Councils may also be able to assist with transport under the Care Act 2014 if the young adult has care needs. However, if the lack of transport means the person with an EHC Plan cannot access their provision, a council would be breaching its Section 42 duty in line with paragraph 16 above.

The Council’s Home to School Travel Assistance (HTST) Policy

20. When a young person begins post-16 education or training, the level of school travel support changes. It is for the Council to decide the level of support they offer, and these arrangements do not have to include free or subsidised travel. Funding of travel assistance for sixth form learners and adult learners is subject to annual budgets and financial affordability.

What happened

21. Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y, who has special educational needs and an EHC Plan. He attends a further education college about 30 miles from home and receives weekly psychological therapy provisions during term time at a practice around 20 miles from the college. The Council funds his transport between home and college under its Home to School Transport policy. Mrs X told us the Council, following a Tribunal decision, also funded transport to his weekly in-person therapy sessions from January 2024 for the remainder of the 23/24 academic year which took place at the therapist’s practice.
22. In May 2024 the Council issued Mr Y’s amended final EHC Plan following an annual review. The plan continued to list weekly psychological provisions for Mr Y. However, the plan did not say these needed to be delivered in-person.
23. At the start of the new 24/25 academic year in September 2024 Mr Y continued attended the college but the Council did not continue funding his transport to the psychological provisions.
24. In September 2024 Mrs X complained to the Council it had delayed arranging transport to Mr Y’s psychological provision in 2023, causing him to miss four months of sessions, and she wanted assurance this would not happen again in the 2024/25 academic year, including agreement to fund transport to his therapy.
25. The same month, Mr Y’s therapist also contacted the Council, expressing confusion as to why transport had been provided the previous academic year but not in the current one. The therapist was uncertain how Mr Y would attend that day’s session and highlighted how the four-month delay in arranging transport at the start of the 23/24 academic year negatively impacted Mr Y’s health. The therapist added that sessions could be delivered online if Mr Y had access to a laptop.
26. The Council had not issued a complaint response but replied to Mrs X’s emails stating that its transport team could not fund transport to Mr Y’s therapy. In subsequent correspondence, the Council advised that Mrs X could appeal the decision to the transport team and said it could offer Mr Y travel training to enable him to make the journey independently in the future.
27. Mrs X responded that she had no legal duty to transport Mr Y to therapy because he is an adult, and that responsibility for delivering the provision set out in his EHC Plan rests with the Council. She also stated that travel training was not a viable option, as the distance from home meant Mr Y would not arrive at college on time, and his medical condition prevented him from using public transport.
28. By November 2024, having received no response, Mrs X complained to us.
29. In March 2025, the Council replied to Mrs X complaint stating Mr Y was no longer of statutory school age and therefore it was not required to fund transport to his college, although it would continue to do so as a goodwill gesture. However, it would not fund transport to therapy delivered outside the education setting and confirmed Mr Y should receive his psychological therapy online.
30. Unhappy about the Council’s response, Mrs X escalated her complaint to be investigated further at stage two.
31. In May 2025 Mrs X contacted the Council to apply for travel assistance for Y between home and college.
32. The same month the Council sent Mrs X its final complaint response. It upheld its original stage one response and decision.
33. In June 2025 the Council informed Mrs X it had granted her travel assistance request and the Council confirmed her application met the criteria for its HTST policy and it offered Y free home to school travel assistance in a space on a shared transport with a passenger assist.
34. Following our enquiries, the Council told us that, after the Tribunal decision in 2023, an officer (who no longer works for the Council) decided to fund Mr Y’s transport to weekly therapy sessions for the remainder of the 23/24 academic year. The Council stated that this decision was not in line with its HTST policy. As a result, for the 24/25 academic year, it decided to apply its HTST policy and informed Mrs X that it would no longer fund transport to Mr Y’s therapy when she complained about the matter in September 2024. The Council provided no further explanation other than that funding transport was not in line with its policy and that responsibility lay with a different department.
35. In July 2025 following an Annual Review the Council issued Mr Y’s amended, final EHC Plan. The plan states weekly psychological provisions during term time and one in-person session per time – three for the 25/26 academic year.
36. In August 2025 the Council confirmed it would fund the transport for Mr Y’s three sessions for the 25 / 26 academic year.

My findings

Mr Y’s transport arrangements to in-person therapy provisions

37. It is a statutory duty for the Council to arrange transport to and from training and education places for adult learners with an EHC Plan. However, it is not a statutory duty to arrange transport to fulfil an adult’s care needs. In line with its HTST policy, it is at its own discretion for the Council to assist with those travel arrangements.
38. We have seen no evidence the Council failed to arrange Mr Y’s transport to and from his college for the academic years 24/25 or 25/26.
39. The Council issued Mr Y’s EHC Plan in May 2024. It continued listing Mr Y’s weekly psychological therapy in Section F of his EHC Plan but did not specify these needed to be delivered in-person.
40. Following our enquiries, the Council informed us that Mr Y received the therapy through online sessions during the 2024/25 academic year. However, we have seen evidence from late September 2024 indicating that neither Mrs X nor Mr Y’s therapist knew at that stage how the sessions would be delivered. On balance, it is likely that it took the Council and the therapist time from that point to change the format from in-person to online delivery. This delay is fault and resulted in Mr Y missing his specialist provision for at least one month.
41. If Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s wording in the Plan issued in May 2024 it would have been reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the Tribunal to appeal the content of the plan.
42. In July 2025 the Council issued Mr Y’s amended final EHC Plan. The Plan continued to list his weekly psychological therapy provisions in Section F. This time it specified that once per term sessions need to be held in-person. In August 2025 the Council confirmed it would arrange transport to these three in-person sessions for the 25/26 academic year. This was in line with Mr Y’s EHC Plan and not fault.

The Council’s communication with Mrs X

43. The Council funded Mr Y’s transport to weekly in-person therapy sessions for the reminder of the 23/24 academic year following a Tribunal order to include this therapy provision in Section F of Mr Y’s Plan. There is no evidence the Council informed Mrs X or the commissioned therapist it would not continue this arrangement for the 24/25 academic year or gave a reasonable explanation for its decision. This is despite the provision remaining the same. It further did not respond to Mrs X’s complaint about the matter for six months. This was fault and caused Mrs X uncertainty and avoidable distress.

Back to top

Actions

44. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise and make a payment of £200 to Mrs X and Mr Y for the uncertainty and frustration caused, and for Mr Y missing one month of specialist provision at the start of the 24/25 academic year.This was caused by the Council’s failure to clearly and effectively communicate its decision to discontinue funding Mr Y’s transport to his therapy and for taking six months to respond to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one. 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 I have recommended.
2. Implement an action plan that ensures procedures are in place for communication between the Council’s SEND and Transport teams to ensure EHC Plan requirements — including transport needs — are clearly communicated and that arrangements to secure this provision are recorded.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have found fault and made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman