SEND TRANSPORT WOES
CHILDREN RELUCTANT TO USE SEND SCHOOL TAXIS IN ESSEX
“I don’t want to put my children in the school transport taxi, but how else do I get them to school?” asks Donna. Three of her children have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and rely on Essex County Council’s transport scheme to get to their specialist school. The BBC reports that Donna was one of a number of parents who got in touch with them after a watchdog found the scheme caused families distress and put children’s safety at risk. Sam Journet, cabinet member for education, SEND and skills, said the report “was shocking” and the council had “asked for a top to bottom review of home-to school- transport”. The council received more than 90 complaints about the transport scheme in autumn 2025 and more than 20 further complaints in January and February this year, according to
the Local
Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO, external). It investigated two separate complaints concerning missed or late pick-ups, drivers changing frequently and one child going missing.
Under the transport provider 24x7, routes and drivers would change to
save money, showing “a
disregard” for the needs of children that “rely on consistency and routine”, the report said. Donna, 40 and from Colchester, said her children now “don’t want to get on the taxi” and she had made a complaint to the council. “We’ve had staff sicknesses, so at the last minute we’re told they can’t collect, or they’ll be 60
PHTM NOVEMBER 2026
minutes late - or you’ll get to the other end of the day, where a pick- up will be late, stranding the children at school for an hour,” she said.
On one occasion, staff drove her children home; on others, her husband has left work early to collect the children. She compared this to the previous transport company, where “the drivers were absolutely fabulous, fully trained, interacted with the kids”. Emma’s husband had lost his job after “his boss didn’t understand that he needed to do the school run”, she said. Their seven-year-old daughter is severely autistic and completely non-verbal and needs harnesses to keep her safe when she is being transported to school. “The previous company were very welcoming, calling my daughter by her first name as soon as they saw her,” said the 40-year-old. “When she got in the taxi the first time, there was no communi- cation, which made me feel uncomfortable - and can you imagine how it made her feel?” Soon her daughter “didn’t want to get in the transport, she was anxious, she was pacing and running, clinging to me, so that was really upsetting” she said. Emma and her husband, who is now self-employed, now do the school run. As they have another child whose school is 20 minutes in a different direction, their daughter “has a really long journey to get to school”.
“He will be awake in the night - and it’s the first thing he says to
me in the morning is ‘I don’t want to go to school’,” said Rebecca, 36. “We haven’t reached that point where he doesn’t go, but there have been a few times when he has been stood outside completely frozen, not able to get into the taxi.” She was describing her 11-year-old, who was “really struggling” since he had begun using the scheme to take him to his new secondary school. “24x7 don’t seem to have the information from the local authority about the children’s needs and they just try and seem to be trying to get as many children into the taxis as possible,” she added. Rebecca has also put in a complaint to the council. Journet said the LGSCO report “was shocking, it’s quite frankly atrocious... [parents] were very right to complain”. He said: “We can’t say that it’s never going to happen again, but we’re doing everything in our power to
ensure the service
becomes the best it can be.” The Reform UK councillor blamed the previous Conservative administration, which had run Essex County Council for a quarter of a century. “What we can take ownership of is how we move forward and we ensure that the service is the best that it can be,” he added. “Myself and the leader, Peter Harris, have asked for a top to bottom review of home-to-school transport and where providers are not providing that service, that high expectation that we have for the service, we will hold them to account.”
11
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
