Summary: Mr B complains the Council stopped collecting him in a mini-bus to take him to a day centre he goes to as part of his support package the Council provides. He now must travel by taxis, which is expensive. The Ombudsman finds the Council should have included an assessment of Mr B’s needs and review of its financial assessment in its decision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, is represented by his sister, Ms B. She complains the Council cut Mr B’s transport to his day centre. It now costs him around £80 a week in travel costs to get to the centre. The Council said it had done this because Mr B can use public transport, which he cannot. And that he gets the high rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). But that is wrong. Mr B only gets the low rate mobility of DLA.

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 the documents provided by Ms B;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Ms B;
• considered a review the Council carried out as a recommendation from an Ombudsman’s decision on a different complaint.
• sent draft decisions and considered the responses I received.

Back to top

What I found

5. The 2014 Care Act introduced a single framework for assessment and support planning. The Care Act gives local authorities a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan.
6. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says:
• ‘‘Meeting needs’ is an important concept under the Act…The concept of ‘meeting needs’ is intended to be broader than a duty to provide or arrange a particular service. Because a person’s needs are specific to them, there are many ways in which their needs can be met. The purpose of the care and support planning process is to agree how a person’s needs should be met, and therefore how the local authority will discharge its duty, or its power, to do so.’

• ‘[service users] …must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan, or support plan. The personal budget is an important tool that gives the person clear information regarding the money that has been allocated to meet the needs identified in the assessment and recorded in the plan.’
• ‘The personal budget must always be an amount sufficient to meet the person’s care and support needs, and must include the cost to the local authority of meeting the person’s needs which the local authority is under a duty to meet, or has exercised its power to do so. This overall cost must then be broken down into the amount the person must pay, following the financial assessment, and the remainder of the budget that the authority will pay.’
• ‘the review and revision of the [care] plan should be intrinsically linked; it should not be possible to decide whether to revise a plan without a thorough review to ascertain if a revision is necessary, and in the best interests of the person’.

The Council’s Transport Policy

7. The Council introduced a new Transport Policy in April 2018. This says:
• ‘Under the Care Act 2014, the Council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible assessed needs. This includes an assessed eligible need to enable a citizen to get around in the community safely, to make use of necessary services and to use public transport. Citizens with assessed eligible needs and their carers have the right to have their views taken into account by the Council when it is assessing and considering provision of transport support or services’
• ‘Council funded transport will only be provided if, in the opinion of the assessor, it is the only reasonable means of ensuring that the service user can be safely transported to an assessed and eligible service. Where there is alternative appropriate transport available (either personal or public transport), it will be assumed that the service user will use this as a first option. Council funded transport will only be provided if alternatives are unavailable or inappropriate for some reason.’
• ‘A citizen who receives a benefit for example, the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA)…, to facilitate their mobility needs, it is expected that a reasonable proportion of it should be made available for transport needs in accessing support and services. The actual amount will depend on individual needs and requirements. However the full cost of the transport will be the starting point. Consideration will need to be given about other critical demands placed on the allowance.’
• ‘To promote independence and social inclusion a citizen who can travel to a community activity, either independently or with assistance from family, friends or support providers will not normally be provided with Council funded and arranged transport.’

What happened

8. Mr B has learning disabilities. He lives with his mother and Ms B. He receives social security payments, including the lower rate of the mobility component of DLA.
9. In September 2017 the Council reviewed Mr B’s care and support needs. The support plan found Mr B was independent with his mobility and could use a taxi unaccompanied.
10. Until June 2018, the Council collected Mr B in a mini-bus, on weekdays, to take him to a day centre. Attendance at the day centre is part of Mr B’s personal support plan. The transport was at no cost to Mr B.
11. After the Council introduced its new transport policy, it decided to stop Mr B’s mini-bus transport. It did not consider whether this would need a revision of Mr B’s personal support plan or financial assessment.
12. Ms B helped Mr B appeal the Council’s decision. The 14 June appeal response advised:
• Mr B’s access to the transport would stop after he had completed a travel training programme about accessing a taxi.
• The Council’s decision was based upon the fact Mr B received the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA.
13. On 20 June the Council provided a complaint response. This advised:
• ‘Firstly I want to apologise for wrongly stating that [Mr B] was in receipt of high rate mobility allowance. You helpfully provided evidence to show that this was wrong and [he] is in receipt of lower rate mobility allowance. Although this is a lower amount it should be used for [Mr B’] transport needs as per the requirement within the Nottingham City Council Adult Social Care Transport Policy April 2018.’
• It noted Mr B already used a taxi to access another service. So it should extend this to Mr B’s visits to the day centre.
14. Ms B says Mr B’s transport ended at the end of June. Since then she was paying somebody £10 a day to take Mr B to the day centre in the morning (as the taxis were too unreliable at that time of day). In the afternoon, a taxi dropped him back, at a cost of £6.50-7.00 per day.
15. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. The Council’s response to my enquiries advised:
• ‘The components of the care plan collectively, and records attached suggest that although [Mr B] is unsafe to travel on public transport independently e.g. buses he is able to use taxis independently.’
• ‘[Mr B] does not have an eligible need for transport to be provided as he is able to travel independently and safely in a taxi. He also has good physical mobility…’
16. In early January 2019 the Council contacted me to advise that the Council had reviewed its decision. Its decision was unchanged. It noted Mr B ‘…can finance his own taxis without any hardship’.
17. The review also noted Ms B had advised that using taxis had helped Mr B’s behaviour. Ms B has confirmed to me that is the case.
18. This review seems to have taken place as part of a wider review the Council had made on its decisions where it had removed transport; on the recommendation of an Ombudsman investigation about a different person’s eligibility. The Council advised us in January 2019 that it had reviewed 105 decisions. It had changed 12 decisions. 79 decisions were unchanged.
19. I made further enquiries to the Council about whether it had updated Mr B’s support plan and financial assessment to reflect the new transport arrangements. Its response advised:
• It had last reviewed Mr B’s financial assessment for his care and support in 2015.
• ‘The Head of Service for adult social care provision has informed me that the council recognises that there have been errors in this case and it is urgently reviewing the case (including the financial assessment and support plan) and will be working with the family to ensure the best mode of transport is used for Mr [B], which may well be a taxi, and that adult social care will reimburse him for the cost of transport he has had to pay for in the meantime that has exceeded any fairer charging contribution he may be required to make, which will ensure he has been restored to the position he should have been in i.e. without any detriment to him.’

Was there fault by the Council?

20. The Council’s decision to stop Mr B’s transport to the day centre appears to have been part of a general withdrawal of provision, following its new transport policy. But my view is a decision to withdraw transport needed to be carried out with a wider review of any implications on Mr B’s care and support and financial assessment (see for example the Statutory Guidance I cite at paragraph 6). My view is to not do so was fault.
21. In response to my draft decision, the Council advised:
• Its assessment was that, ultimately, with travel training, Mr B could use public transport to attend the day centre. But it accepted this would take time to achieve.
• In February, the Council had completed a further review. This took responsibility to pay for a taxi and would refund costs Mr B had already made.
22. I was concerned that the Council’s first reviews of its transport decisions did not change its decision on Mr B’s provision and instead took the view the taxis were affordable to him. It seems to have done this without reviewing Mr B’s support plan or financial assessment. This raised the possibility of other errors in other cases it had reviewed, following the earlier Ombudsman recommendation.
23. But, in response to my first draft decision, the Council advised:
• The Council had completed all reviews of changes to transport provision and was writing to advise citizens of this. The letters sent were clear about its complaints procedure.
• The new Transport Policy was part of a wider Adult Social Care initiative, looking at bespoke services to support citizens with mild/moderate Learning Disability.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

Personal injustice

24. The faults I have identified led to Mr B having some transport costs he would not have had to make, but for the fault. The Council says it is has conducted a review. It has agreed to meet the costs of taxis and will reimburse Mr B for any costs already incurred.
25. The change in the arrangement and their cost implications will likely have caused Mr B some distress.
26. The faults will also have led to Ms B being put to some unnecessary time and trouble. And some avoidable stress and frustration in challenging the issue. My view is that is an injustice that demands acknowledgment.

Wider implications

27. The Council has advised it has written to those whose decision it reviewed. It says those letters set out the Council’s complaints procedure. My view is that is a suitable notification of a right to challenge those reviews.

Recommended/agreed action

Personal remedy

28. I recommended that:
1. the Council completed its review of its decision on Mr B’s transport as soon as possible;
2. the review considered any reasonable transport costs Mr B has;

The Council has provided me with the outcome of that review.

29. The Council has also agreed to my other recommendations:
1. write to Mr B and Ms B apologising for the fault;
2. pay:

• Mr B £100 as a symbolic recognition of the distress the issue will have likely caused him;
• Ms B £100 for her time and trouble and the stress and frustration the fault caused her.

Service request

30. The Council has also agreed to, within three months of my final decision:
• review its published transport policy to include a reminder that any change in transport provision needs to be undertaken with a wider review of any support plan, considering best interests;
• send a copy of the revised policy to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I uphold this complaint, as I have found fault causing an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. So I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman