Summary: Mrs B says the Council unreasonably cancelled her son’s transport without assessing the suitability of alternative transport arrangements and an officer was rude and unhelpful. I cannot reach a safe conclusion about how an officer dealt with Mrs B. For the transport arrangements the Council misunderstood what arrangements were in place when it arranged for a support worker to accompany Mrs B’s son to and from a provision. That left him stranded at the provision and Mrs B had to make alternative arrangements for the following week. An apology, payment to Mrs B and her son and agreement to confirm any changes to transport arrangements in writing is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council:
• unreasonably cancelled her son’s transport without assessing the suitability of alternative transport arrangements; and
• took no action when an officer was rude and unhelpful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
• gave Mr B and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B says the Council unreasonably cancelled her sons’ transport arrangements without assessing the suitability of alternative arrangements. Mrs B says the Council tried to put in place a taxi service when it should have known her son could not travel unaccompanied and therefore a taxi service would not work. Mrs B says the Council cancelled her sons’ transport which left him stranded on 5 October 2018.
6. I am satisfied up until the changes in September 2018 Mrs B’s son had DASS transport on a Monday and Friday to go to Autism Together and attended college Tuesday-Thursday. However, on 14 September the college said it could not make provision for Mrs B’s son. In normal circumstances the Council would have met with Mrs B and her son to discuss alternative arrangements. However, given the lack of notice and the fact Mrs B works full-time the Council could not carry out an assessment straightaway. It therefore agreed an extra three days at Autism Together for two months to allow the Council time to carry out a review.
7. At first, the Council said Mrs B’s son could take a taxi and began making arrangements for that. While I appreciate the Council’s officer was trying to help by making arrangements to cover the changes with short notice it is clear from Mrs B’s son’s assessment he could not travel unaccompanied. The Council was therefore at fault for not identifying that and for seeking to make arrangements for a taxi. However, I am satisfied that did not result in transport for Mrs B’s son failing on 5 October 2018. Instead I am satisfied when Mrs B told the Council her son needed supervision on any transport arrangements the Council cancelled the arrangements and instead arranged for Haven Care to provide a support worker in the mornings and afternoon.
8. I am satisfied the issue that arose on 5 October 2018 came about due to the Council misunderstanding what Haven Care had agreed to. It is clear to me the Council cancelled DASS transport when Haven Care agreed to provide a support worker in the mornings and afternoon for Mrs B’s son. I consider it is likely, on the balance of probability, the Council did that as it believed the support worker would use their own transport to take Mrs B’s son to and from Autism Together. However, it is clear from what happened on 5 October 2018 this is not what Haven Care understood had been arranged. Instead, all that had been arranged was for the support worker to accompany Mrs B’s son on any transport the Council had arranged. So, the Council had arranged a support worker but had not confirmed the support worker would transport Mrs B’s son to and from Autism Together. I am therefore satisfied it is the Council’s misunderstanding of what Haven Care would provide that resulted in Mrs B’s son being stranded on 5 October 2018. I have seen nothing in the documentary records to suggest Haven Care told the Council its support worker would also use their own transport to take Mrs B’s son to and from Autism Together. Nor is there any evidence the Council told Haven Care that is what it expected it to do. I therefore consider the Council at fault for not confirming with Haven Care whether its support worker could use their own transport to take Mrs B’s son to and from his provision before cancelling DASS transport.
9. In normal circumstances I would not expect this problem to arise as the Ombudsman would not expect the Council to alter transport arrangements without a new assessment. However, in this case due to the lack of notice from the college and Mrs B’s working arrangements a new assessment was not possible. I do not criticise the Council for that. However, as I said earlier, it should have been clear to the Council Mrs B’s son required both transport and somebody to accompany him on that transport and it should have confirmed with both Haven Care and Mrs B what was in place. Had the Council done that it is possible either Haven Care or Mrs B could have identified only a support worker had been provided and not transport itself.
10. That resulted in a serious injustice to Mrs B and her son as he was left stranded on 5 October 2018 and Mrs B then had to make her own arrangements to transport her son for the following week. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Mrs B, pay her £250 and her son additional £250 to reflect their distress and the time and trouble Mrs B had to go to pursuing her complaint. I also recommended in future when the Council is making emergency short-term arrangements for changes to transport it should confirm those changes in writing both to the provider and the service user so any misunderstandings can be rectified. The Council has agreed to those recommendations.
11. Mrs B says the officer that spoke to her on the telephone was rude and unhelpful. Mrs B says although the officer had never met her son she accused Mrs B of being inconsistent about the description of her son’s condition. Mrs B also says the officer accused her of not bothering to read the leaflets she (the officer) had provided about alternatives to Autism Together. The officer refutes the allegation about how she dealt with Mrs B. In the absence of any recording of the telephone conversation I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether the officer dealt with Mrs B inappropriately.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs B and her son;
• pay Mrs B and her son £250 each to reflect the impact the failed transport arrangements had on them; and
• send a memo to officers to remind them that where transport arrangements are altered at short notice when a new assessment is not possible the new transport arrangements should be confirmed in writing both to the provider and service user.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman