Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of her son’s transport company. She says it failed to follow his transport risk assessment which led to an incident where her son exited the vehicle unsupervised and entered the wrong address. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, we could not achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the actions of her son’s transport company. She says it failed to follow his transport risk assessment. This led to an incident where her son exited the vehicle unsupervised at the wrong address. Her son subsequently entered a stranger’s house. She said the transport company then failed to tell her about the incident.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted it failed to update Mrs X’s home address. This led to the transport company being given the incorrect address to drop her son off. Therefore, it has been accepted that Mrs X’s son was taken to the incorrect address.
6. The Council also accepted it should have opened a safeguarding enquiry when it became aware of the incident. However, the Council said this would not have led to any different outcomes as it was satisfied it had addressed the main risk by promptly updating the home address. This would have prevented the mistake from happening again.
7. The Council issued a reminder to staff about the importance of raising safeguarding concerns. Further, the Council arranged for a different transport company to provide the service to Mrs X’s son. These actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
8. The Council has offered Mrs X a financial payment of £200 to recognise the distress caused by the incident and for the time and trouble taken to pursue her complaint. This remedy is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
9. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to a different outcome.
10. In addition, Mrs X told us she wanted a written statement about what happened and that she wanted the transport staff involved to have their Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS) revoked.
11. These are not outcomes we could achieve, even if we were to investigate. This is because we cannot recommend the transport company issue a written statement and any decision to revoke a DBS check is for the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, we could not achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman