Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to arrange transport for her daughter to attend a day centre. We find fault in the Council’s handling of the matter, including poor communication, delay, inadequate consideration of the circumstances, and a failure to properly address the unmet transport and care support needs. This caused ongoing uncertainty and distress for Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise, address the outstanding support gap, make a payment to Ms Y, and take action to improve its practice.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained about the Council’s decision not to arrange transport for her daughter, Miss X to attend a day centre.
2. She said that, as a result, Miss X may be unable to attend, or Ms Y would need to give up work to transport her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms Y 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

Assessment

7. 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. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.

Care Plan

8. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. 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.

The Care and Support Statutory Guidance

9. 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 meet an individual’s needs.

Carer’s assessment

10. Where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. This includes the practical and emotional support the carer provides to the adult.
11. As part of the carer’s assessment, the council must consider the carer’s potential future needs for support. It must also consider whether the carer is, and will continue to be, able and willing to care for the adult needing care. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Direct payments

12. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.

PIP

13. A Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a benefit for people who are under State Pension age that need help with daily activities or moving around because of a long-term illness or disability. As relevant to this complaint, Miss X is entitled to and in receipt of a PIP that includes the higher mobility allowance.

The Council’s transport policy

14. The Council’s transport policy states that there is no automatic entitlement to transport support or assistance with transport costs from Adult and Health Services. Any such support is subject to the person, or their carer, having an assessed transport need that meets the eligibility criteria set out in the Care Act 2014.
15. Following an assessment of need, a practitioner must determine whether the service user meets the eligibility threshold in relation to the specified outcomes. These include the ability to make use of necessary facilities or services in the local community, such as public transport and recreational or community services.
16. The needs of a carer must also be assessed, either separately or as part of a joint assessment with the cared-for person, in accordance with the Council’s carers’ eligibility criteria.
17. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances to be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to agreement by a Team Manager.
18. The policy states that transport will not usually be provided where the service user is in receipt of the higher-rate mobility component of PIP.

What happened

19. Miss X has a disability which causes health and learning difficulties and lives at home with her family who support her in her day-to-day life. She is not left in the home alone. In late 2023, the Council began discussing Miss X’s transition to college. It was agreed that from September 2025, Miss X would attend college three days a week and a day centre two days a week, and that she would receive home-to-college transport.
20. Miss X’s care and support assessments consistently record that she is unable to travel independently or without support.
21. In early 2024, Miss X and Ms Y visited a day centre suggested by the Council (Centre A). Ms Y raised concerns that Centre A’s transport collection time was later than she could manage due to work commitments. She explained that she wished to continue working, but that this would require additional support on days Miss X attended a day centre, as Ms Y would need to leave for work before the day centre started or before transport collected Miss X from home. The Council told Ms Y it could possibly look at arranging a carer to stay with Miss X until she was collected and taken to a day centre.
22. After a taster session, Miss X told the Council she did not want to attend Centre A. Ms Y shared this view.
23. The Council informed Ms Y that because Miss X received higher-rate mobility component of PIP, she would be required to meet the cost of transport to Centre A if that service was chosen.
24. Ms Y subsequently requested a carer’s assessment, which the Council agreed to arrange in April.
25. In June, Ms Y had a carer’s assessment, during which she raised ongoing concerns that her work commitments meant she was unable to transport Miss X to a day centre or remain at home until Miss X was collected.
26. Later that month, during a home visit, the Council’s social worker discussed alternative day centres (Centre B and Centre C) and said they would make contact with them. The social worker confirmed that Miss X would not have to attend the closest day centre. Miss X later told the Council that Centre B was her preferred option.
27. In July, the social worker told the family that it was Adult Social Care’s policy not to fund transport where a person receives the higher-rate mobility component of PIP, and that Miss X would therefore need to meet the cost of any transport.
28. In November, after a request from Ms Y, the Council confirmed it had refused to support with transport and transport costs. It said it had assessed the request in line with its transport policy and concluded that, because Miss X received the higher-rate mobility component of PIP, she was not eligible for transport support. The Council said Miss X should use this benefit to fund her transport, with support from her parents to manage this.
29. Ms Y disagreed with this decision. She said she was unwilling to organise or book transport for Miss X and raised concerns that taxi costs would exceed the mobility component of PIP. She also said Miss X would be unsafe travelling alone in a taxi and was unable to arrange transport herself.
30. In December, the Council agreed to fund Miss X’s attendance at Centre B, her preferred option, for two days a week. Ms Y later raised concerns about the difference between term-time provision and her continued work commitments and asked for support to cover this shortfall.
31. In January 2025, Ms Y said that arrangements for transport to Centre B had still not been resolved. The Council reiterated that it had followed its policy and would not provide or organise transport for Miss X. It said Miss X was expected to use the mobility component of her PIP to fund transport and that supporting her to manage this was part of the parent or carer role. The Council also suggested a direct payment to enable a worker to transport Miss X to the day centre, but the family declined this as they did not know anyone who could fulfil the role.
32. In February, the Council provided further clarification. It maintained that Miss X should use the mobility component of her PIP to fund transport to Centre B. It also agreed funding for additional provision to cover the difference between college term dates and Ms Y’s work commitments. The Council explained that a personal assistant could be recruited via an advert, but Ms Y said this would not work for the family. She also raised concerns about the risk of a worker leaving, leaving her to manage the situation.
33. In March, Miss X had a care assessment review. The review recorded that provision at Centre B would begin in September and that Miss X is unable to travel independently. It also documented the discussions that had taken place about transport to Centre B and noted that transport arrangements had not yet been resolved. The review stated that transport was not usually provided unless there were exceptional circumstances, and that direct payments had been declined.
34. In April, Ms Y complained to the Council about its decision-making and its failure to provide transport to Centre B. She challenged the decision that Miss X was not eligible for transport support, disputed the Council’s view that the mobility component of PIP should be used to fund transport, and said Miss X was unable to arrange transport herself. She also said she was unwilling to arrange transport, which was why she had declined the offer of a direct payment. Ms Y explained that Centre B could not provide transport because of the distance from her home.
35. In May, the Council responded to the complaint. It accepted that Miss X has eligible social care needs and is unable to travel independently. It said it had offered Centre A, which included transport, and although the family chose not to accept this, the Council considered it suitable and able to meet Miss X’s needs. It said that choosing Centre B, which did not include transport, was the family’s decision. The Council said it had applied its transport policy and concluded that Miss X was not eligible for transport support because of her mobility benefit. It said the offer of direct payments was made as a “goodwill gesture” to enable the family to fund a support worker to assist with travel. It also said that if Miss X were eligible for transport, it would have arranged this, but she was not.
36. In June, Ms Y brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
37. Following the complaint, the Council arranged for a support worker already working with Miss X to collect her on the days she attends Centre B and accompany her to and from the centre. The support worker arrives before Ms Y leaves for work and stays with Miss X until Ms Y returns home.
38. In response to my enquiries the Council confirmed that its records show Miss X cannot travel independently and requires support and guidance. It said that, when considering day centre options, it looked for provision that could meet Miss X’s care needs and also provide safe transport. The Council said it identified Centre A as suitable because it could meet both requirements.
39. The Council said it assessed that Centre A could meet Miss X’s needs and therefore viewed the family’s request for Centre B as a preference rather than a need. It said it did not determine that Miss X could arrange or manage her own travel. Instead, it considered that Centre A could manage transport as part of its service. When Centre A was declined, the Council said it offered alternatives which would require the family to arrange transport using the mobility component of Miss X’s PIP.
40. The Council said it considered Miss X’s needs alongside Ms Y’s carer’s assessment and offered direct payments to employ a personal assistant to support Miss X when Ms Y left for work. It said this support could also include transporting Miss X to the day centre. The Council said Ms Y declined this option, explaining that she did not have family nearby. The Council also said it explained that personal assistants could be sourced through other means, but that this was also declined. However, the Council has not been able to provide documentary evidence to show these discussions took place.
41. The Council said it considered Miss X’s circumstances in line with its transport policy, which was why it offered direct payments. It said it would consider providing transport to someone in receipt of the higher-rate mobility component of PIP where the only provider able to meet a person’s needs does not offer transport. In Miss X’s case, it said it did not consider that a commissioned taxi, with or without an escort, was the most efficient way to meet her needs.
42. The Council said it applied the transport policy criteria in September 2024 and discussed the use of direct payments in October 2024. It said it accepted that Miss X did not want to attend Centre A and helped her explore alternatives by providing information about all day care services available in the county. However, it maintained that Centre A remained able to meet Miss X’s needs, despite the family’s objections.
43. The Council said it accepted the importance of Ms Y continuing to work and offered support through either a direct payment or a commissioned care provider to remain with Miss X until transport to the day centre arrived. It later commissioned the family’s preferred provider to assist Miss X by accompanying her to and Centre B and supervising Miss X at home until Ms Y returns.
44. The Council confirmed it had always accepted that Miss X would require support before leaving for the day centre. It said the arrangement for Miss X’s existing support worker to assist her on day centre days was initially offered through a direct payment.
45. Finally, the Council confirmed it has not agreed to arrange or fund Miss X’s transport to the day centre during the period between the end of college term and the start of Ms Y’s annual leave. It said this period related to supporting Ms Y to continue working and therefore to meet the carer’s needs rather than Miss X’s needs.

My findings

46. The Council accepts that Miss X is unable to travel independently or without support. It also accepts that she cannot arrange transport herself and that she should not be left at home alone. These needs were known to the Council throughout the period under consideration.

Identified gap in care support

47. When the Council first suggested Centre A in January 2024, it understood that if Miss X could not be collected and transported to day services before Ms Y needed to leave for work, this would create a gap in care support. The Council has confirmed that it always accepted Miss X would require support before leaving for the day centre. At that time, it said it could possibly look at arranging a carer to support Miss X during this period. However, there is no evidence that this issue was meaningfully revisited or resolved at any stage during the scope of my investigation. This was fault and caused Ms Y significant uncertainty and distress.

Reliance on PIP before proper assessment

48. In January 2024, the Council told Ms Y that because Miss X received the enhanced mobility component of PIP, she would be required to meet the cost of transport. This decision was made before Ms Y had a carer’s assessment and before the Council had fully considered the interaction between Miss X’s needs and Ms Y’s ability and willingness to provide support. This was contrary to the Council’s own transport policy and was fault.
49. The Council later reiterated this position on several occasions. While it told me it formally applied the transport policy criteria in September 2024, the evidence shows it had already decided Miss X was not eligible for transport support and communicated this to the family at least twice before then. This directly contradicts the Council’s assertion that it properly considered the matter at a later stage.

Miss X’s preference and the Council’s response

50. Miss X made her preference clear after attending a taster session at Centre A. She did not wish to attend there, and Ms Y also raised concerns that Centre A would not support or develop Miss X’s independence.
51. The Council initially appeared to support Miss X’s wishes by providing information about alternative day centres and ultimately agreeing to fund a placement at Centre B, Miss X’s preferred setting. I find the Council appropriately considered Miss X’s wishes when deciding to fund this placement.
52. However, the Council later explained that it considered Centre A able to meet Miss X’s needs and therefore would not fund or arrange transport to Centre B. This position was not clearly communicated to the family until May 2025, more than 12 months after Miss X said she did not want to attend Centre A, and around five months after the Council had already agreed to fund Centre B. This delay was fault and meant the family was unable to make an informed decision at the relevant time.
53. The Council also failed to clearly document why, despite Miss X’s stated wishes and the concerns raised, it continued to believe Centre A was the most appropriate option. This approach risks downplaying Miss X’s right to have her views properly considered within her care and support planning.

Failure to address transport as an unmet need

54. By agreeing to fund provision at Centre B, the Council accepted that Miss X’s assessed needs could be met at that setting. Transport was a known and acknowledged requirement, as the Council had assessed that Miss X is unable to travel independently or arrange transport herself.
55. However, the Council did not identify or put in place a workable plan for how Miss X would access the provision in practice. Although the agreed start date for Centre B was not until September 2025, the absence of any clear transport or support arrangements meant there was ongoing uncertainty about whether Miss X would be able to attend at all. This was fault.
56. The injustice was not that Miss X missed provision, but that Ms Y was left with prolonged distress and uncertainty about whether her daughter’s assessed needs would be met and whether she would be required to give up work to ensure this happened.

Application of the transport policy

57. The Council says it considered Miss X’s individual circumstances, including her inability to arrange or manage her own travel and Ms Y’s caring role, when applying its transport policy, and that it offered direct payments as a way of meeting those needs. However, there are no contemporaneous records showing how those factors were considered. The only consistently recorded reason for refusing transport support was Miss X’s receipt of the higher-rate mobility component of PIP. This lack of adequate recording is fault.
58. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence, I am not satisfied the Council properly considered Miss X’s assessed needs when deciding whether to arrange or support transport. Records show, the Council focused primarily on Miss X’s entitlement to PIP as a financial resource, rather than whether additional care or support was required to enable her to safely access day services. While it was reasonable for the Council to take PIP into account when considering transport costs, this did not address Miss X’s wider care needs, including her inability to arrange transport or travel independently. This was fault.

Use of direct payments

59. The Council’s handling of direct payments further demonstrates this failure. Ms Y raised clear and reasonable concerns about managing direct payments and said she was unwilling to take on this responsibility. Miss X herself does not have the capacity to manage direct payments.
60. Despite this, the Council did not offer a meaningful alternative or recognise that refusing direct payments left Miss X with no way to travel to Centre B. After January 2024, there is no evidence the Council explored other options for arranging support within the scope of this investigation.
61. While direct payments are one way of meeting eligible needs, they cannot be forced. The Council later reverted to the position that Centre A was available and provided transport, effectively dismissing Miss X’s expressed preference and Ms Y’s concerns. This was fault.
62. The Council also failed to separate two distinct issues:
• how transport would be arranged for Miss X, given she cannot arrange it herself; and
• who would pay for that transport.
63. Instead, it focused almost exclusively on Miss X’s PIP entitlement and repeatedly told the family she was not eligible for support. This approach was flawed and contributed to ongoing uncertainty.

Conflation of Miss X’s needs and carer support

64. The Council treated transport primarily as a carer support issue, rather than properly considering whether Miss X herself had an eligible need for assistance to access community services. This risked conflating Miss X’s needs with Ms Y’s caring role, contrary to the Care Act requirement to assess each separately. This was fault.

“Goodwill” characterisation of direct payments

65. In its complaint response, the Council described the offer of direct payments as a “goodwill gesture.” This is incorrect.
66. Miss X had an identified unmet care need: support in the morning when Ms Y leaves for work, and support to travel to and from Centre B. These needs were known to the Council from January 2024 and again when it agreed to fund Centre B in December 2024. The Council was required to identify a way to meet these needs. The offer of direct payments was not goodwill but an attempt, albeit an incomplete one, to meet assessed needs.
67. By framing direct payments as goodwill, the Council failed to properly recognise and address its responsibilities. This was fault.

Summary of faults

68. The Council failed to identify and properly address three separate decisions it needed to make:
• How transport to Centre B would be arranged, given Miss X cannot arrange it herself and Ms Y had declined responsibility;
• Who would fund that transport; and
• How to provide care support to bridge the gap between Ms Y leaving for work and Miss X being collected.
69. As a result, Ms Y repeatedly had to chase the Council and was left with prolonged uncertainty and distress about whether Miss X could attend Centre B or whether she would need to give up work to provide care.

Current position

70. The Council eventually arranged for an existing support worker to assist Miss X in attending Centre B. This went some way to remedying the situation. However, this support was only put in place after Ms Y complained to the Ombudsman and does not fully remedy the injustice caused by delay and poor communication.
71. The Council has also not yet resolved the shortfall between Miss X finishing college and Ms Y’s work commitments. While it has accepted a care need and agreed that Miss X can continue attending Centre B during this period, it has so far refused to fund and arrange support and transport arrangements on these additional days. This leaves ongoing uncertainty.
72. The Council has said that options may be available. It should now discuss these with Ms Y without delay to bring this matter to a resolution.

Back to top

Action

73. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms Y and Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Ms Y £500 to recognise the avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble she experienced in repeatedly pursuing the Council to resolve matters that should have been addressed earlier;
• resolve the outstanding shortfall of necessary support and transport arrangements to Centre B to cover the period between Miss X finishing college and Ms Y’s work commitments; and
• using this case as an example, remind relevant Adult Social Care Staff of the need to:
1. properly record discretionary decisions, including the reasons for them;
2. clearly explain the consequences when families decline a proposed service; and
3. distinguish between a service user’s eligible needs and a carer’s support needs, in line with the Care Act 2014.
74. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

75. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman