Summary: Miss D complained the Council stopped the taxi her son used to get to a day centre and said he should use his Motability car instead. We find some fault with how the Council carried out the transition. But we have not found fault with the Council’s decision to change the transport arrangements. The fault we have found will have caused some distress . The Council has agreed to our recommended apology and symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr D) is being represented by his mother (Miss D). They complain:
• at short notice the Council ended its transport arrangements for taking Mr D to a day centre;
• the Council told them it advised a year ago they should look for alternatives to the day centre as the transport might stop. They have no recollection of any Council officer giving that advice;
• the Council said Mr D should use his Motability car to get to the day centre. It suggested using a personal assistant (PA) to drive the vehicle. It sent a PA to visit them. But the PA advised the care agency would not be able to provide the care at the hours or times Mr D needed;
• the Council refused to give them any fuel allowance to get to the day centre, meaning Mr D is having to fund this himself;
• the taxi company refused to take Mr D earlier than the Council said it would, as it said the Council had not paid it for any later trips.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr D, Miss D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Adult Social Care

6. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The Act gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan for applicants with eligible needs. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
7. Everyone must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan if a council is meeting their needs. It sets out the costs of meeting the person’s care needs.

The Care and Support Statutory Guidance

8. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance supports the Care Act. It says councils:
• must take into consideration an individual’s preferences;
• should have regards to how needs might be met in ways other than the Council providing services. If a person is already in receipt of care or support, then a council may not have to arrange, or provide, that part of the care and support;
• must make sure they have enough funds available to meet the needs of the entire local population. Councils can take that into account when considering how best to an individual’s needs.

The Motability car scheme

9. The Motability car scheme is open to recipients of some types of disability benefits. Claimants can use those benefit payments to lease a vehicle through the scheme.
10. The rules of the scheme say the vehicle needs to be used by the disabled customer, or for their benefit. This does not mean they need to be in the vehicle for every journey. Other drivers can use the vehicle for other purposes, as long as the disabled applicant benefits;
11. the scheme includes insurance cover, servicing, MOTs and breakdown cover. It does not include fuel costs.

The Council’s Adults Travel Policy

12. At the time this complaint relates to, the Council’s Adults Travel Policy said:
• if someone could not get to a service or activity themselves it would consider “the most appropriate best value option to support the individual’s needs”;
• the policy’s aims included to be person-centred and to support value for money;
• if somebody had a Motability car the Council would expect them to use the car to meet their transport needs. If somebody said that was not possible it would explore the reasons before making a decision;
• where a person used their own vehicle or a Motability car, it would not normally consider, petrol costs or other expenses.
13. In January 2025 the Council introduced a new version of its Adults Travel Policy. In regards to Motability vehicles, this also says the Council would expect a service user to use the vehicle to meet their transport needs. The revised Policy says “[n]o petrol costs of other expenses will be considered for funding by the council”.

What happened

14. This decision statement provides a timeline of key events and does not include everything that happened.

Background

15. Mr D is a young adult who has care needs as the result of disability. Miss D says Mr D has had a Motability car since he was an infant.
16. On reaching adulthood, Mr D’s care moved from the Council’s Children’s Services to its Adult Social Care’s Transitions Team. It provides Mr D with support though a care and support plan. Part of the provision is for Mr D to attend a day centre in a town away from where he lives. Mr D’s care and support plan says:

“[Mr D] needs to be transported to and from each activity as he is unable to travel independently. [Mr D] to be supported to access activities, the community, and social opportunities.”

The proposed changes to Mr D’s travel arrangements

17. Mr D was getting to the day centre using a taxi funded through his care and support plan. Miss D says Mr D’s old social worker had mentioned the possibility that the taxi might stop, but that she would advocate on Mr D’s behalf to retain it.
18. At the beginning of August 2024, a new social worker took over responsibility for Mr D’s care and support plan. A note on the Council’s file from that time says it had agreed to backdate some taxi costs. It had also agreed to fund the taxi for a further six weeks, while it looked for alternative transport solutions. It intended to give notice to the taxi company.
19. Around a week later, the Council’s social worker spoke to the taxi service and advised it its service would end at the end of August. The social worker noted that was two weeks earlier than the previously noted six weeks.
20. By 12 August, the Council was trying to find a care provider who had a PA who could drive Mr D in his Motability car to the day centre.
21. On 15 August the Council’s social worker spoke to Miss D to advise:
• it had only agreed the taxi service for a time-limited period;
• the Council was exploring best value options;
• she noted Miss D’s reservations about an agency worker supporting Mr D and driving his Motability vehicle.
22. Miss D asked to speak to a manager. After speaking to Miss D, on 22 August a Council manager emailed Miss D with a summary of their conversation. This noted that Miss D would send the manager “…confirmation from the taxi company of the 8 days, to avoid any confusion”.
23. A social worker visited Mr D and Miss D on 30 August. The social worker’s record notes:
• Mr D said he was no longer able to attend the day centre as his taxi had stopped. The social worker advised Mr D the Council could arrange support so he could use his Motability car to get to the day centre;
• Miss D said she needed the car to take her other children to school, do the shopping, attend GP appointments, do the laundry;
• she explained to Miss D that Mr D’s Motability car was to help him get to his activities and was not a family car. As such the Council could provide a PA or a community support to take and bring Mr D back home from the day centre.
24. At the beginning of September the Council found a care provider which could provide a PA to drive Mr D to his day centre. It says Miss D did not engage with this possibility.
25. The Council has a document recording that the taxi to transport Mr D to the day centre was to continue until 19 September. But on 9 September Miss D advised the Council that the taxi company would no longer transport Mr D without confirmation from the Council of payment.
26. On 11 September the Council’s social worker spoke to a care provider who said it could provide a PA to drive Mr D to the day centre. The PA then spoke to Miss D. What was said during that conversation is disputed:
• Miss D says the PA said they could not provide the service at the times Mr D needed it;
• the care provider told the Council Miss D wanted the PA to drive Mr D in their own vehicle. The care provider said Miss D was adamant its staff could not drive Mr D’s car.
27. Miss D complained about the taxi stopping. The Council’s September response:
• advised Mr D had unused days taxi, which was why the service was due to end on 18 September;
• advised its view was: “..ample notice was provided to your family to explore alternative transportation options, especially given that Mr [D] already has access to a Motability car, which could be used for his transport needs”;
• repeated its reminder that Mr D’s Motability car was for his use and should not be treated as a family car;
28. Shortly after, Miss D contacted the Council to advise Mr D could not afford the fuel for his car. The Council advised Miss D she should discuss the fuel costs with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), not the Council.
29. Miss D says that since the taxi ended, she supported Mr D to get to the day centre. In that time Mr D’s social worker left the Council.
30. The Council says, after the social worker left, its Duty Team was actively managing Mr D’s case. It had been in communication with Miss D about transport issues each month from October 2024 to January 2025.
31. In January Miss D complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:
• in relation to whether Mr D had been advised he might need to go to a different day centre, it said it use strengths-based approach, with the aim of developing independence skills. So it did not anticipate that any one service would form the basis of a lifetime plan. Its review explored progression towards additional life options;
• it was committed to finding solutions to the obstacles Miss D raised that prevented Mr D using his car. It cited researching if Mr D’s medication could be posted, to free up use of Mr D’s car, so Miss D did not need to go to the pharmacy;
• Miss D had agreed to the use of a PA to support Mr D to use his Motability car to access his day placement. It had sourced and agreed that service.

Was there fault by the Council?

32. As the Care and Support Statutory Guidance and the Council’s own Adult Travel Policy sets out, the Council was entitled to:
• take account of alternative support. The Council’s policy includes Motability cars within that alternative support;
• seek better value ways for Mr D to get to his day centre, as it could balance Mr D’s needs against the needs of other service users.

So I see no fault for the Council exploring ways it could use Mr D’s Motability car to get him to the day centre.

33. Miss D has advised a social worker had told her about the possibility the taxi might stop. And, as the Council says, there is no guarantee that services remain unchanged. So, more likely than not, Miss D was told about the possibility of changes to the transport arrangements, although I accept perhaps she had not understood at the time the implications of this.
34. However, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance also says a council must take account of individual preferences. And the Council’s own policy said it would explore with someone why their view was they could not use their Motability car. So I would have expected to have seen some record of the Council contacting Miss D and Mr D to discuss its proposed changes and exploring options before making a decision. Instead the timeline suggests the Council had already made its decision – it had cancelled the taxi contract – before advising Miss D, at relatively short notice. So, while the decision was one for the Council to make, I do find fault with the way the Council went about making it.
35. One of Miss D’s complaints is about the Council refusing to pay Mr D’s fuel costs, which she says he cannot afford. The Council has a record that it did advise it would not meet fuel costs and Miss D should contact the DWP. The Council’s policy did say it would not normally pay for fuel costs for people with Motability cars. But the policy was worded in such a way that acknowledged the possibility of exceptions to that general rule. So I would have expected to see a record of the Council exploring with Mr D and Miss D whether there were any reasons to make an exception from its usual policy. I cannot see the Council did this, which was fault.
36. I also find some fault with the Council communications with Miss D about the end date of the taxi service. The Council’s records give some credence to Miss D’s assertion the end of the contract was not well managed by the Council:
• a social worker cancelled the service with an end date two weeks before it had initially planned. There is no record of the reasons for that change in timescale;
• the Council has a record of Miss D contacting it to advise the service stopped around two weeks earlier than the Council says it did. There is no record of the Council responding to Miss D’s contact.
37. One of Miss D’s complaints is about a PA advising they could not provide the support the Council had asked it to provide. But the Council’s records about that conversation differ from Miss D’s recollection. These competing accounts of what happened means I do not have the evidence to uphold this part of the complaint.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

38. I have found fault with the initial consultation with Miss D, and some uncertainty about the end date of the taxi service. Those faults caused some injustice to Miss D and Mr D for a time-limited period at in August and into September 2024.
39. It was time limited because, more likely than not, if the Council had contacted Mr D beforehand, it would have made the same decision. But the period of distress during the time identified is significant enough to warrant a remedy.
40. I have also found fault in the Council not considering if there were discretionary reasons for funding Mr D’s fuel costs to get him to and from the day centre. The injustice here is some uncertainty at that time about whether a consideration of this issue might have led to a different decision.
41. That uncertainty has now ended as the Council’s policy now definitively says it will not meet fuel costs.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. I recommended that within a month of my final decision the Council should:
• write to Mr D apologising for the fault I have identified;
• make Mr D a symbolic payment of £100 for his distress during the period when it was considering the change in his transport arrangements.
43. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice, so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman