Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to make a reasonable adjustment for her son and provide him with transport to his place of education. She says that this is despite the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal recommending this. She reports her son has become frustrated with the lack of support he is receiving. We found the Council at fault which caused Mrs X’s son injustice. The Council should make payment and apologise to Mrs X’s son.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council has failed to make a reasonable adjustment for her son (Mr Z) and provide him with transport to his place of education. She says that this is despite the SEND Tribunal recommending this.
2. She reports Mr Z has become frustrated with the lack of support he is receiving. Mrs X says the communication with the Council has been poor throughout and the matter has been very time consuming.

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 suggest 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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the young person’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
9. 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)  
10. 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. 
11. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.

12. 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. 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.

What happened

13. In October 2024, the SEND Tribunal found Mr Z should attend an educational setting and decided it would be a reasonable adjustment for the Council to provide transport given his needs.
14. In November 2024, the Council completed the Educational Health and Care (EHC) Plan. However, this was disputed by Mrs X, and a plan was not agreed until December 2024.
15. In February 2025, the Council told Mrs X of the need to apply for transportation. Mrs X says it took 13 weeks for the application to be processed, and she was informed different reasons for the failure to provide transportation.
16. She says the educational provider told her the Council would need to agree to funding. However, she was also told that Mr Z would need to be enrolled to apply for transport.
17. In June 2025, the Council in its response to the complaint, agreed that a taxi service is a likely reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. The Council agreed to contact Mrs X to arrange transport for the start of the academic year in September 2025.
18. Mrs X says the Council failed to do this and in December 2025 Mr Y decided he no longer wished to attend college.

Analysis

19. The Council had a duty to secure the provision set out in section F of the EHC Plan. This is non-delegable. This duty started from when it issued the EHC Plan in November 2024. I accept that some of the details of the plan were still under dispute at this point, however the Council through the plan and the SEND Tribunal would have been aware of its responsibility towards Mr Z.
20. I have reviewed the Council’s policy regarding transport, and it states the following:
21. ‘Free travel assistance will be provided to a young adult learner (not being a person of sixth form age) where:

• the local authority has secured the provision of education or training and the provision of boarding accommodation for an adult learner aged under 25
• they are subject to an EHC plan
• it is considered necessary to facilitate that person’s attendance at the place of education or training.’

22. The Council also agreed in June 2025 that because of Mr Z’s health needs, providing transport to his educational setting, would likely be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.
23. I consider it fault therefore the Council failed to arrange transport for Mr Z. The direct result of this failure was that Mr Z was unable to attend his educational setting.
24. I note that different reasons were provided by both the Council and the educational provider to why Mr Z did not attend or could not be provided with transport at the time. This included stating that Mr Z did not attend college when requested to do so. However, as explained the onus was on the Council to secure the provision set out in the EHC Plan. This included setting up the educational provision and transport to this in advance. As it has not done so, this is fault by the Council.
25. This fault has impacted Mr Z and caused him injustice because he has not received the education he is entitled to receive through his EHC Plan. Also, because of not being able to attend the educational setting, he was also not able to receive the extra support set out in his EHC Plan. This includes Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), Occupational Therapy (OT) and physiotherapy.
26. Our guidance on remedies sets out the award suitable per term when a Council has failed to meet its responsibilities fully in terms of educational provision. I have considered the EHC Plan was only in place partially for the winter term of 2024. Also, that in the winter term of 2025, Mr Z decided he no longer wished to attend the educational setting.
27. However, I have also considered the needs set out in Mr Z’s EHC Plan are high and this is a factor in the level of award I have made. Also, that Mr Z needed OT, SALT and physiotherapy provision which the Council failed to provide. I therefore have found the Council should provide an award of £900 per term for the winter of 2024 and the winter term of 2025. It should provide an award of £2,000 per term for the spring and summer terms of 2025. The total award is therefore £5,800.
28. I also find the Council should apologise to Mr Z and Mrs X for the distress this matter has caused them.
29. The Ombudsman has recently recommended improvements to the Council’s service on the setting up of provision following the issuing of an EHC Plan. Also, we have recommended improvements about the setting up of SALT provision. I have therefore decided that no further service improvements are required.

Back to top

Action

30. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X and Mr Z for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the failure to secure suitable provision. Also, for the failure to provide transport from November 2024 to December 2025.
2. Pay Mr Z £5,800 for the failure to provide full, suitable provision for the winter term of 2024 through to the winter term of 2025.
31. 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.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Mr Z.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman