SEND TRANSPORT WOES
BRADFORD FIRM LOSES REMAINING SCHOOL CONTRACTS AS ANOTHER HANDS BACK 23
Last month PHTM reported that local operators had raised con- cerns about school transport bids submitted at rates significantly below prevailing commercial levels. They warned Bradford Council that the prices quoted were too low to provide a safe, reliable and financially sustainable service. Despite these reported warnings, contracts continued to be awarded. However, serious questions are now being raised about the council’s tendering process following reports that Girlington Private Hire, which allegedly secured more than 300 school runs and had already handed back around 20 due to difficulties delivering the work at the agreed rates, received a letter on 16 October 2026 notifying it of the termination of its remaining contracts. Issues have also emerged over alleged service failures, including late collections, inconsistent driver arrangements and safeguarding concerns involving vulnerable children. These allegations remain unverified, and Bradford Council has yet to confirm the grounds for the reported terminations.
Council decisions questioned One operator, speaking anony- mously, questioned why contracts continued to be awarded despite reported warnings: “The council was made aware that the prices being offered were extremely low and that there were concerns about whether the work could be managed at those rates. Other operators raised concerns at the time, yet the contracts continued to be awarded.
10
“Now all the runs are being terminated, drivers could be left facing the consequences of decisions they had no control over.”
AS WE GO TO PRESS – ANOTHER 23 RUNS HANDED BACK
PHTM has been informed that another Bradford
operator,
reportedly awarded 35 new school transport contracts, has handed back 23 of them. Sources claim Bradford Council subsequently put these routes back out to tender, allowing operators just 24 hours to respond. The council reportedly cited significant operational changes affecting the routes. However, PHTM has been told that such changes applied to only four of the 23 routes. Why, then, was it necessary to retender all 23 at such short notice? Would it have been fairer and more efficient, where procurement rules permit, to approach operators who finished second or third in the original bidding process? Furthermore, is 24 hours sufficient time for operators to properly assess the routes, calculate realistic costs, establish driver and escort availability and prepare a financially sustainable bid? Rushed tendering risks creating the very problems the council should be trying to avoid.
What checks were carried out? The scale of Girlington’s alleged original award raises further questions. What checks estab- lished whether the company had sufficient drivers, passenger escorts, vehicles and management resources to deliver so many
school runs? Were warnings about unrealistic prices properly investigated? And when contracts reportedly began being returned, did the council reassess the operator’s ability to fulfil the remaining work?
Value for money – or simply the lowest bid? The wider concern is whether Bradford Council’s procurement process places sufficient emphasis on operators’ ability to deliver safe, reliable and sustainable services, rather than concentrating too heavily on price. Drivers and passenger escorts face potential loss of income, while families need reassurance that transport arrangements will continue without disruption. For SEND children in particular, familiar drivers and consistent routines can be essential. Accepting the cheapest bid is no saving if contracts subsequently fail, routes have to be reallocated and vulnerable children face disruption to their journeys. With school runs being handed back or terminated, Bradford Council must now address whether its own procurement and contract management procedures are contributing to the problem – and what needs to change to prevent it happening again. PHTM has contacted Bradford Council for comment on both this article and last month’s report. However, as we go to press, no response has yet been received. We would nevertheless welcome the council’s response and would be happy to provide space in next month’s issue for its comments.
NOVEMBER 2026 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82
