Summary: We will not investigate how the Council considered Mrs X’s complaint about transport to provision agreed within an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider her complaint about her child Y’s transport to college and therapies agreed within his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She said that pursuing the complaint with the Council had been stressful and Y had to borrow money to access his provision. Mrs X wanted the Council to accept complaints, investigate and respond to them within the timescales of its complaint policy.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s child, Y’s Independent Transport Allowance (ITA) stopped in July 2025. Y travels to college four days a week, and to a different location one day a week for therapies as outlined in his EHC Plan.
6. Mrs X asked the Council to reinstate Y’s ITA through a school transport application in July 2025. The Council refused this application.
7. Mrs X submitted a Stage 1 appeal for travel assistance. The Council refused the Stage 1 appeal in August 2025. Mrs X then submitted a Stage 2 appeal for travel assistance in September 2025. The Council accepted the Stage 2 appeal was based on medical evidence provided by Mrs X. The Council agreed to fund an ITA for Y to travel to college 4 days of the week.
8. Mrs X contacted the Council to complain that it had not agreed Y’s travel to the therapy location one day per week. The Council agreed in November 2025 to fund Y’s travel to the therapy location.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s two transport appeals, and Y now has an ITA set up for travel to college, and a separate personal budget for travel to therapies. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve Y’s transport to therapies. It said that it had identified improvements for the service, including discussing transport at EHCP annual reviews and signposting to the post-16 transport policy. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. The Council has apologised for the delay in agreeing a personal budget, and identified improvements to prevent the matter recurring. It agreed to backdate the funding.
11. Mrs X complained that the Council did not consider her complaint under its corporate complaints process. The Council considered Mrs X’s transport application and her stage 1 and stage 2 transport appeals. We would not expect the Council to take this matter through a separate corporate complaints process. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault that would justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman