Summary: Mrs W complains about the Council’s decision to suspend its Temporary Vacant Seat scheme on home to school transport and the way it communicated with her. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision to suspend and then end the scheme. But it failed to properly consider Mrs W’s application and review request for post-16 transport for her daughter and consider whether it was necessary to offer help with transport. This meant Mrs W lost the opportunity to have her individual circumstances considered. The Council has agreed to consider her review request and review its post-16 transport policy. This is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs W complains about the way the Council has dealt with suspension of its Temporary Vacant Seat scheme on school transport. She complains that the Council:
1. initially suspended the scheme because of COVID-19 but then continued to suspend it because contracted vehicles did not comply with rules on access for people with disabilities;
2. failed to communicate properly with her, including failing to explain the real reason for the continued suspension and failing to respond to emails;
3. has delayed in making a final decision on the scheme;
4. failed to prepare for the disabled access rules.
2. This means that since her daughter joined the sixth form she has not been able to buy a vacant seat on the school bus that goes from her village to her school. Mrs W says she lives in a semi-rural area with no public transport and no suitable walking route to school. She says the only way of getting her daughter to and from school is to drive her. This causes difficulties for her and her husband with their employment as it involves changing their hours and sometimes missing work commitments. She would like the Council to offer a solution that would allow her daughter to travel on the school bus.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
4. 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
5. 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

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs W and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I spoke to the Council’s Head of Transport and Future Connectivity (‘Head of Transport Operations’) over the telephone to clarify some of the issues in the Council’s response. I considered relevant law, guidance and Council policy on home to school transport.
7. Mrs W and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Home to school transport for pupils of sixth form age

8. Councils have a duty under the Education Act 1996 to provide free home to school transport for certain groups of children of compulsory school age. For pupils of sixth form age, councils must publish a statement setting out the arrangements for provision of transport they consider it necessary to make to help pupils attend education or training, and the financial help available. (Education Act 1996, section 509AA)
9. Councils have discretion in setting their arrangements, as long as the statement includes provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. But statutory guidance 'Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training' says councils must take account of various factors including:
• the needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practicable to access education or training if no arrangements were made (including those living in particularly rural areas where the transport infrastructure can be more limited).
10. The guidance says the overall intention of the sixth form transport duty is to ensure learners can access education and training of their choice. It says if support for access is requested, this will be “assessed and provided where necessary”. Councils must “exercise their power to provide transport or financial support reasonably, taking into account all relevant matters”.

Council’s policy on post-16 home to school transport

11. The Council’s ‘Post-16 Transport Policy Statement’ says it sets out the support the Council considers necessary to facilitate the attendance of Post 16 learners receiving education or training.
12. The policy sets out various bursaries and public transport discount schemes available in the area. The Council also offers travel assistance to post 16 students from low-income families and those with special educational needs and disabilities needing specialist travel assistance in certain circumstances. In all cases students must meet the following conditions, among others:
• The young person is attending their catchment or nearest school or college with places available for the course they wish to study.
• The school or college is between 3 and 15 miles away from home by the shortest driving route.
• They pay a set fee as a contribution towards either a public transport pass or a seat, if available, on an existing contracted transport route.

Home to school transport appeals

13. The Council has a two-stage review and appeals process for challenging decisions about home to school transport, including about eligibility under the post-16 travel scheme.
14. The process is as follows:
• Stage 1 – review by a senior officer. The officer will consider whether the law and policy has been properly applied and consider any exceptional circumstances outlined.
• Stage 2 – independent appeal panel. Parents may attend the panel to make verbal representations if they wish.
15. At each stage the decision letter should include details of what information, evidence and factors were considered. It should explain the rationale for the decision.

Temporary Vacant Seat scheme and COVID-19

16. The Council also had a discretionary Temporary Vacant Seat (TVS) scheme for pupils not eligible for help with transport under the law or the Council’s policy. Where there were spare seats on a vehicle the Council had contracted for home to school transport, parents could apply for a seat and pay a fee. Under the scheme there was a limited number of seats available, parents had to apply each year, there was no guarantee there would be a seat available, and the Council could withdraw a place if it was needed for a pupil entitled to free transport. There was no right of appeal about the temporary vacant seat scheme under the Council’s transport policy.
17. In June 2020 the Council decided to suspend the vacant seats scheme from September 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools had closed to most pupils in March 2020 in the first national lockdown. There was a partial return to school in June and a full return in September. During this period the government issued guidance to councils on operating safe travel systems, including implementing social distancing rules. The Council decided that to comply with government guidance and minimise the risk of transmission of COVID-19, it had to reduce the numbers of passengers on home to school transport. It did this by offering transport only to pupils entitled to free transport, and so it suspended the vacant seats scheme.
18. In preparation for the re-opening of schools in September 2020, the Council considered government school transport guidance issued in August. Social distancing rules were no longer compulsory for dedicated school transport vehicles. But the guidance advised councils they must do “all that is reasonably practicable to maximise social distancing where possible and minimise the risk of transmission”. The Council confirmed its decision to suspend the vacant seat scheme.
19. The Council wrote to parents in June 2020 informing them of the suspension of the vacant seat scheme. It explained that as a result of COVID-19 safety measures it had to reduce capacity on transport vehicles and would only be able to offer transport to pupils entitled to free transport. The email contained a link to the information about the suspension on the Council’s website. The Council said it would notify parents if it was able to reinstate the scheme in future. It advised them to check the website for updates.
20. The scheme remained suspended for the whole of the academic year 2020-2021. The Council reviewed the position again in August 2021 following a government announcement to end ‘bubbles’ and social distancing measures in schools. At that point the Council also took into account the impact of the Regulations discussed below.

Public Services Vehicle Accessibility Regulations

21. The Public Services Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2000 (‘PSVAR’ or ‘the Regulations’) required all public service buses and coaches on local and scheduled routes carrying more than 22 passengers to be accessible to people with disabilities, including wheelchair users. The deadline for complying with the Regulations was 31 December 2019.
22. The Regulations do not apply to vehicles hired for commercial use, such as holidays, or to home to school transport vehicles carrying eligible pupils only, with no paying fare-passengers.
23. Until mid-2019 most local authorities understood the Regulations applied only to local and scheduled bus services where passengers paid a fare. During the summer there were discussions with the government to clarify the position. In November 2019 the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) wrote to all councils confirming the Regulations also applied to home to school transport services where there was a mix of fare-paying and non-fare paying passengers. However, it said it understood some school transport services were not in a position to provide compliant services and would stop providing mixed services when the Regulations came into effect. It therefore granted a limited exemption from the Regulations for services where no more than 20% of the passengers were fare paying, in order to allow operators time to become compliant. The exemption was due to expire on 31 December 2021.
24. In July 2021 the DfT announced operators could apply for extended exemptions for home to school transport services up to the end of March 2022. The exemptions would be available to operators who could demonstrate the steps they were taking to comply with the Regulations. In December 2021 the DfT further extended the exemption to 31 July 2022 for operators with existing exemptions.

What happened

Council’s response to PSVAR and suspension of the TVS scheme

25. In the summer of 2019 when the Council realised the Regulations would apply to mixed home to school transport vehicles, which were not all compliant, it decided to offer spare seats free of charge until further notice.
26. The Council applied for the two-year exemptions to the Regulations when they became available in November 2019. It agreed to extend the free vacant seat scheme while it applied for the exemptions.
27. In June 2020 the Council suspended the scheme from September, as described above, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council continued to review the position.
28. When it reviewed the TVS scheme in August 2021, it also considered the impact of PSVAR because the exemptions were due to expire in December 2021. The Transport Team reported on surveys and research carried out with coach operators. It found there was a shortage of PSVAR compliant vehicles on the market locally and nationally and that full compliance was likely to take between three and seven years. The Council considered a range of options as follows.
• Withdrawing the TVS scheme immediately.
• Keeping the scheme suspended while it carried out a ‘short engagement exercise’ with interested parties.
• Various options for reinstating the scheme and selling seats on PSVAR complaint vehicles only, while asking operators to apply for further exemptions in the meantime.
29. The Council considered the pros and cons of each option. It decided to continue the suspension of the TVS scheme while it conducted a public ‘engagement exercise’ or survey to help it to decide on the future of the scheme. It decided it would not reinstate the scheme unless it could identify a ‘legal and fair solution’ that could be applied equally across the County.
30. The Council updated its website in August to confirm it was continuing to suspend the vacant seat scheme because of the PSVAR. It explained how the Regulations affected the operation of the TVS scheme and announced the survey, inviting responses by 12 October 2021. It explained:
• To comply with PSVAR, vehicles with more than 22 seats had to be wheelchair accessible and the Council could only sell seats on compliant vehicles.
• Most of the routes serving schools use vehicles with more than 22 seats, most of which do not comply with PSVAR.
• This means the Council cannot sell vacant seats on all vehicles it uses for home to school transport.
• The Council had reviewed the situation and found as transport operators were not likely to have enough compliant vehicles for several years, it could not provide a system within the law that would be fair. Having a hybrid system would potentially result in some families paying a large sum for a service another family would get for free, and still leave other families without any option.
• Unless “a legal and fair solution is presented to us in the next six weeks” parents should assume the TVS scheme would not be reinstated.
31. The Council also explained the position and publicised the survey by contacting parents who had been enquiring about the TVS scheme, issuing press releases, and sharing information with schools.
32. The Council considered the results of the survey, or ’listening exercise’ at a pre-Cabinet meeting on 3 November and a Cabinet meeting on 15 December.
33. In deciding on the future of the TVS scheme the Council considered a range of factors, including:
• a detailed analysis of the survey results, including solutions suggested by participants;
• the financial, legal, and equalities implications of each of the options considered previously, and the numbers affected;
• the state of the coach market and the level of compliance with the Regulations;
• action taken by other local authorities to deal with the problem; and
• its statutory transport duties.
34. The report to Cabinet explained the difficulties local coach operators faced in sourcing new or second-hand PSVAR compliant vehicles or retrofitting existing ones, in terms of time and expense. Only around 30% of operators’ existing fleets were already compliant and most of those were already contracted. The report explained that because of the confusion around the legislation, many coach operators, even those with modern fleets, did not have vehicles that met the Regulations as they had thought home to school transport, school/club trips and leisure trips were all exempt. The Cabinet considered the practical difficulties of having to replace the number of vehicles needed and the likely cost, which would place significant additional pressure on the Council’s home to school transport budget.
35. The Council found it could still meet its statutory duty to transport pupils who qualified for free transport without requiring all vehicles to comply with the Regulations. It said it would always provide eligible pupils who had mobility needs with a suitable vehicle, and would be able to commission a PSVAR compliant vehicle if and when necessary to meet the needs of an eligible pupil.
36. The Council decided to end the vacant seat scheme but to review the decision and consider reinstating the scheme once there were significantly more coaches available across the County that meet the PSVAR requirements.
37. It also decided to analyse the data from its research and the survey in more detail to look at the possibility of re-routing existing public bus routes to serve areas where pupils had lost out because of the impact of the Regulations. This would help pupils not entitled to free transport to get to school.
38. Following the Cabinet meeting the Council wrote to parents explaining the outcome of the survey and the Council’s decision to end the scheme. It confirmed it would use the feedback it had received to compare demand with existing routes. It said where possible it would work with operators to adapt services to help children not entitled to free transport to get to school. It advised that the decision to discontinue the vacant seat scheme would not affect pupils entitled to free home to school transport, or those aged 16 and over who are eligible for transport under the post-16 scheme. The Council updated its website accordingly.

Mrs W’s case

39. Mrs W is one of several parents who complained to the Ombudsman about the suspension of the TVS scheme. Mrs W’s daughter, C, is 16 years old and attends a school eight miles from home, School 1. Mrs W says the roads to school are dangerous for walking or cycling. C was attending School 1 before she joined the sixth form in September 2021. She used to have a seat on the school transport bus that comes through her village under the TVS scheme until it was suspended. C does not have any special educational needs or disabilities.
40. In preparation for C’s move to the sixth form Mrs W wrote to the Council’s Vacant Seat Scheme email address in May 2021 saying C would need school transport from September. Mrs W said her job prevents her from being able to take C to school and said she understood she needed to apply for transport. She said she had tried to use the online form, but it had not worked.
41. The Council replied in early June saying the vacant seat scheme was still suspended but it would notify applicants of any changes and update the website.
42. Mrs W wrote to councillors about the issue, highlighting that there was no public bus service in the area. They took up the matter on her behalf.
43. Mrs W is part of a group of parents campaigning against the suspension of the TVS scheme. On behalf of the group she wrote to the Council’s Head of Transport Operations five times in June 2021 and to a Cabinet Member for Children & Young People and says she did not receive replies. She did receive a reply from another Transport Officer in early June confirming the scheme was suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic. If there were any changes the Council would notify all applicants and update its website.
44. In early July an officer in the Integrated Transport and Planning Team replied to Mrs W sympathising with the position parents were in but saying the scheme remained suspended, it was not a statutory service and advising parents to consider alternatives. Any changes would be published on the website.
45. On 7 July Mrs W used the form on the Council’s website to ask for a stage 1 review of the decision refusing transport assistance. She used the form for compulsory school age children. She referred to difficulties parents in rural areas would face because of the suspension of the TVS scheme. She said she was writing on behalf of families affected. In response to the question about whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying awarding help with transport outside of the Council’s policy, she said there were. She said there was no public transport to get her daughter to school. She referred to the environmental impact of the 300 families affected who would have to use cars.
46. The Council replied saying as she appeared to be disagreeing with and complaining about the policy and process the Council operates, the review request fell outside the review and appeal system. However it said the Council would be responding to the points she had raised.
47. Mrs W wrote to the Council again on 8 July as well as to her local MP, copying in a number of Council Members. She raised concerns that, although the Council had said the scheme was suspended in response to the global pandemic, she had found out from other parents that it had first been suspended in 2019. She referred to the extra traffic it would cause if parents had to drive their children to school. The Head of Transport Operations said she would respond to all points in due course, but confirmed the suspension was due to the pandemic but the decision had been kept under review.
48. Mrs W wrote to the Council again later in July saying she had not received any response in two weeks and it was getting close to the start of term and parents wanted to know how they would be able to get their children to school. The Council replied, sending her a link to the update on the Council’s website. This referred to using public transport. Mrs W replied saying there was no public transport available in the area her daughter could use.
49. Mrs W then made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council replied at the end of July confirming the scheme had been suspended because of the pandemic. It said it would be reviewing the suspension following further government announcements and the requirement for the Council to consider the impact of PSVAR. It referred to the information on its website about the suspension of the scheme. It said until the Council reached a decision, it would continue to suspend the scheme and non-eligible children would need to make their own travel arrangements from September 2021. It said it would not deal with her concerns under the Council’s complaints procedure as this would not change the Council’s position.
50. Mrs W then wrote to the Head of Transport Operations again referring to the PSVAR and asking for the full response she had promised in early July. Mrs W says she did not receive a response.
51. At the end of August Mrs W wrote to the Head of Transport Operations again saying it had been 55 days since she had been promised a full response but she had yet to receive one. She said in two days’ time her 16-year-old daughter was due to return to school and she had been unable to find any alternative transport now that the vacant seat scheme was suspended. She explained that she often worked away from home and would not be able to take C to school. She had looked into taxis but they were not affordable and another community transport scheme she and other parents had looked into had been contracted by the Council to provide transport to others. She said she understood it was her responsibility to get her daughter to school, but she wanted suggestions about how to do this.
52. On 1 September the Head of Transport Operations wrote to Mrs W saying she was responding to emails she had sent to Members, Cabinet Members, MPs and senior leaders at the Council about the TVS scheme. She referred to the engagement exercise and invited her to contribute. She asked Mrs W to note that the Council would not respond to individual emails about the matter during the period of the survey.
53. After the survey period was over Mrs W wrote to the Head of Transport Operations in November asking what the Council’s plans were.
54. After receiving the letter from the Council informing parents of the decision on the TVS scheme, Mrs W submitted a new form requesting travel assistance. She said there was no safe alternative transport available for her daughter now that the scheme had ended.
55. The Council replied in early January 2022, saying again that comments about the removal of the TVS scheme did not fall under the review and appeal process. It said it would only offer seats for sale to pupils entitled to transport under the post 16 transport policy when the seat could be sold legally. It referred her to details of the scheme.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

56. Mrs W complained to the Ombudsman not only because she did not agree with the decision to suspend and then end the vacant seat scheme. She also felt the Council had not been honest in the reasons it gave for suspending the scheme, and had failed to communicate with her properly.

Suspension of the Temporary Vacant Seat scheme

57. Suspension of the scheme has clearly left Mrs W and some other families living in areas with no public transport in the difficult position of having to find alternative ways of getting their children to school. Mrs W is understandably aggrieved when she sees the bus her daughter used to use going through her village with empty seats but is unable to buy a seat for her. However the Ombudsman has no power to criticise a council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
58. In this case the TVS scheme was discretionary and the Council was entitled to consider whether it should continue under the changed circumstances, firstly of the COVID-19 pandemic and then the impact of the accessibility Regulations. The Ombudsman has already dealt with a complaint about the Council’s suspension of the scheme in 2020 due to the pandemic (reference 20007506). We found the Council was not at fault as it was following government guidelines on COVID-19 safety measures.
59. Mrs W’s complaint is about the decision to continue to suspend the scheme and then end it in 2021. My view is the Council was not at fault in the way it arrived at its decision. It reviewed the position in August 2021, resulting in a decision to carry out a survey. The evidence I have seen shows the Council weighed up the options carefully and in detail and considered relevant information and the implications of each course of action, as described in paragraphs 33-35 above.
60. It would have been open to the Council to ask coach operators to apply for further temporary exemptions up to the end of July 2022, which might have assisted Mrs W and others in her position. This was one of the options considered. However, taking into account the risk that operators would not be able to demonstrate they were working towards compliance with the Regulations sufficiently to qualify for the exemptions, and the resources the Council would need to devote to the process, it decided this was not a viable option. The Council took the view that even if operators were granted exemptions, the coverage was likely to be uneven across its area. It decided it would only reinstate the TVS scheme if it could find a way of doing so fairly across the County and it had not been able to do so. That was a decision it was entitled to make.
61. The Council was satisfied the decision to end the TVS scheme would not affect its ability to meet its statutory duty towards pupils eligible for transport.
62. Based on the evidence I have seen I do not consider there are grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s decision to end the TVS scheme, even though Mrs W strongly disagrees with it.
63. The documents show the Council recognised stopping the scheme might have an impact on some pupils not eligible for free transport who might have greater difficulty getting to school. The fact that the Council is looking into re-routing public bus services is evidence it listened to concerns raised by families in areas where there is no access to public transport. I understand the Council has started work on this and this may provide a solution for Mrs W.
64. Regarding the failure to prepare for PSVAR, the evidence I have seen suggests many councils and transport operators were caught out as they were not aware the Regulations applied to home to school transport until the middle of 2019. The Council then started working with operators on the problem at that point, but it has not been able to resolve the issue.

Communications

65. The Council wrote to Mrs W and other parents affected in June 2020 to advise about the suspension of the TVS scheme in advance of the start of the new academic year in September. Up till that point they had been able to benefit from the scheme free of charge.
66. When the Council wrote to parents in August 2021 it referred to the PSVAR. Mrs W feels it had been hiding the real reason for suspending the scheme. However I do not see evidence that the Council was deliberately misleading parents. It had initially suspended the scheme because of COVID-19 and then had to review the position when circumstances changed following a change in government guidance. It became necessary to consider whether to reinstate the scheme in the light of the Regulations. At the same time the Council warned parents they should not rely on the scheme and should consider alternative arrangements.
67. Mrs W says the Council failed to respond to her emails about the suspension of the scheme. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council said Mrs W sent a large number of emails to officers, general team inboxes, councillors and Cabinet members over a long period. It also received similar correspondence from other parents.
68. The Council said the priority of the Transport Team is to manage home to school transport for pupils entitled to transport. It said a significant amount of officer and Member time was spent on responding to enquiries about the TVS scheme. But because of the volume of emails received it was not possible to respond to every one. Instead it says it agreed standard responses and told parents and other interested parties that the Council would not respond to individual emails but would publish any updates on the suspension of the scheme on its website. In the circumstances I do not consider the failure to respond to every email amounts to significant fault.
69. However Mrs W made it clear when she wrote to the Council on 8 July that she was writing on behalf of a group of parents. The Head of Transport Operations said she would respond to all her points but did not respond to her until 1 September after Mrs W had written to her at least twice more. I consider this was fault. On the points about the status of the TVS scheme, any injustice from this failure was mitigated by the ability for Mrs W and other parents to find out information on the Council’s website. But the lack of response caused frustration for Mrs W.

Post-16 transport policy and application and appeal

70. I also consider there was fault in how the Council responded to Mrs W’s request for help with transport and her review and appeal. I appreciate that Mrs W wrote to the Council many times, sometimes on behalf of the group of parents and sometimes about her own situation. Also, even when she tried to use the Council’s application form and review and appeal process, the personal and general issues were intertwined.
71. Nevertheless she started in May 2021 by asking for help with transport because of her own difficulties in getting her daughter to school, and she referred to these issues again when asking for a review of the refusal, and again in August just before the start of the school term. She also made a further application in December 2021. I consider that the Council should have treated this part of the correspondence under its post-16 transport review system rather than telling her the matter was outside the remit of the appeal process. The failure to do so is fault.
72. In response to our enquiries the Council said it is not aware of any children who have been unable to get to school because of the withdrawal of the TVS scheme. But Mrs W explained the impact on her of having to take her daughter to school. As the Council did not deal with the matter under the appeal system, she lost the opportunity to have her individual circumstances considered. This is an injustice to her.
73. The Council should have considered whether it is necessary to provide transport to Mrs W’s daughter. In response to our enquiries the Council said its post-16 transport policy takes account of all relevant factors as required in the statutory guidance. But I see no reference in the policy to consideration of the needs of those in rural areas where there is no public transport. Nor is there room in the Council’s policy for any discretion to consider whether transport is necessary for pupils who do not meet the low income or special educational needs and disability criteria.
74. I consider the Council’s post-16 transport policy is flawed as it does not cover these issues. This fault contributed to Mrs W’s injustice as already set out in paragraph 72. The papers show that in the discussions around the suspension of the TVS scheme the Council recognised it may need to review its post-16 transport policy. My view is it should do so now.

Back to top

Agreed action

75. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs W the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the decision on this complaint:
• Apologise to Mrs W for delay in responding to her correspondence on behalf of the group of families and pay her £100 to recognise the frustration this caused.
• Apologise to her failing to consider her own request for help with transport properly.
• Consider her request for review of the decision refusing transport assistance. If the Council agrees it is necessary to provide transport, it should reimburse Mrs W for the costs of taking C to and from school following her application in May 2021, so from September 2021. It should also pay her £250 to recognise the difficulties she had in transporting her daughter herself. If it does not agree, it should write to Mrs W to explain its decision and offer her the right of appeal. If the appeal is successful the same remedy should apply.
76. The Council has also agreed to review its post-16 transport policy to include reference to pupils in rural areas and to allow for discretion in deciding whether it is necessary to provide transport assistance. It will take this action within six months and tell the Ombudsman the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I have found that the Council was not at fault in how it decided to withdraw the Temporary Vacant Seat scheme. But it was at fault in failing to respond properly to Mrs W’s application and appeal for help with home to school transport and consider whether it was necessary to provide support. I also consider there was fault in how the Council responded to Mrs W’s request for help with transport and her review and appeal. I am satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take to remedy the injustice caused and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman