Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in providing transport for her son to attend school and in dealing with an assessment for an education and healthcare plan. We found the Council took too long to inform Miss B that it would not refund her husband’s working time when he had to take his son to school, but has taken sufficient action to put matters right.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that Derbyshire County Council (the Council):
• sent her son D to School Z which was unsuitable and failed to provide the correct support for him;
• delayed in providing taxi transport to the school and failed to make adequate collection arrangements initially;
• failed to adequately compensate her husband, Mr B, for his costs in transporting D to school before the taxi was sorted out;
• delayed in dealing with the request for an assessment for an education and health care plan (EHCP); and
• delayed excessively in dealing with the complaint.

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. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
4. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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

7. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have written to Miss B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Miss B’s son, D, underwent surgery as a young baby and is on long-term medication as a result, which affects his life on a daily basis. These events have affected his physical and mental development.

Background

9. In October 2015 the family moved to Derbyshire but could not get a place for D at their local school. This school is an academy and the Council has no control over its admission policy or its implementation. D continued to attend his old school 12 miles away.
10. Miss B applied for assistance with transport (she had a medical condition which prevented her from transporting D to school and her husband, Mr B, works). The Council refused as it considered there were nearer suitable schools with places available. It provided Miss B with details of the schools, one of which was School Z.
11. D was finding it increasingly difficult to manage the long journey to and from school and his attendance was low.
12. In August 2017 the transport review panel agreed, due to D’s refusal to travel and Miss B’s medical issues, to provide a taxi on a short-term basis to enable D to settle in at School Z. It did not consider Mr B’s normal working arrangements were a barrier to transporting D to school.

Previous complaint

13. We dealt with a complaint in 2017 from Miss B about the transport provision and the Council’s refusal to secure a place for D at the local school using the fair access policy.
14. We found no fault in the Council’s actions. We concluded in September 2017 that:
• the fair access policy did not apply to D as it only applies to children who do not have a school place and there is no other school which can accommodate them;
• we could not consider the actions of the local school as it was an academy;
• the Council had properly applied its transport policy to D’s case. If Miss B applied for a qualifying school, transport would be provided because of D’s medical needs; and
• the Council had suggested a qualifying school and agreed to provide taxi transport on an interim basis. We considered that was a reasonable resolution to the complaint.
15. We cannot consider complaints again.

New issues

Transport to school

16. Miss B secured a place for D at School Z after the start of the autumn term on 18 September 2017. She applied for a taxi for him the same day, saying he was due at school at 8.30 am the following day.
17. She complained on 19 September 2017 about the lack of a response from the Council and that Mr B had lost work taking D to school.
18. The Council replied on 20 September 2017. It said its transport policy stated that it could take up to 15 working days to arrange the transport and that parents were expected to transport their child during the interim period.
19. The Council arranged for the transport to start on Monday 2 October 2017. It informed Miss B by email on 29 September 2017, saying a letter would follow but would not arrive by Monday.
20. On the Monday the travel to school was successful but there was confusion over the pick-up point on the way back: the school had agreed a pick up point on the school premises and informed the operator. But in the morning D asked the driver to wait in a different place (where his father had been picking him up). D waited in his usual spot but the taxi driver waited in the school grounds. Mr B left work to pick him up. Miss B submitted a complaint by email that day saying the arrangements were inadequate and left D at risk.
21. She emailed again on 4 October 2017 to say D had missed a day’s school due to anxiety and to complain about the lack of response to her emails. The Council emailed Miss B the same day to confirm it had spoken to the school and Mr B and the arrangements were now clear to everyone. Miss B replied that it was an inadequate response and her son had been left on his own at the side of the road.
22. The Council says it agreed as an exception to refund Mr B’s mileage costs and sent Miss B a reimbursement form on 23 October 2017. But Miss B submitted invoices for compensation for Mr B’s time in transporting D to school between 19 September 2017 and 2 October 2017.
23. She did not receive a reply and chased the matter in June 2018. The Council replied in July 2018 to several issues. In respect of the transport it said that it had followed its policy in providing transport as quickly as possible.
24. In August 2018 the Council agreed to continue the transport until the end of Year 11.

Transport to after-school sessions

25. On 23 October 2018 Miss B requested transport for D to attend an after-school session twice a week to help him meet his targets for his GCSEs. The school letter said the sessions were mandatory. Miss B had asked the taxi operator but they were unable to accommodate the later time.
26. She contacted the Council again on two more occasions. On 7 November 2018 she emailed the Council again to say Mr B was picking him up and complained about the lack of a response. The Council replied on 13 November 2018 apologising for the lack of a response. It said it would ask the operator if they could accommodate the request but if not, it was a matter for the parents and the school to resolve. The Council could only provide transport at the beginning and end of the normal school day.
27. Miss B sent invoices for Mr B’s time, transporting D to the sessions.
28. This matter was not included in the stage two complaint response (see below). But I agreed to include it in my investigation.

Request for EHCP

29. School Z completed a request for an EHCP assessment in April 2018. However, it sent it in error to Derby City Council as School Z was in its borough. Derby County Council was not aware of this mistake until 4 July 2018. It contacted Miss B to request copies of the relevant information and referred the request to the decision panel on 23 August 2018. The Panel refused the request: on the basis of the educational psychologist’s view it concluded D’s needs could be met within the school from existing funding. It notified Miss B on 24 August 2018. Miss B appealed the decision to the SEND tribunal.
30. The tribunal heard the case in December 2018 and decided D should be assessed for an EHCP. This assessment is ongoing.

Complaints

31. Miss B complained to us in July 2018 after receiving the stage one response. We referred the complaint back to the Council to consider at stage two of its complaints process. The Council started an investigation and met with Miss B. But then due to illness another investigator took over. She completed a report on 31 October 2018. The Council sent a copy to Miss B on 8 January 2019.
32. The Council said it had agreed in October 2017 as an exception to pay mileage costs, and sent Miss B a form. It discovered during the investigation that Miss B had instead submitted invoices which had been passed to the Head of Service for consideration. There was no further record of any action on this. It partially upheld this complaint as it should have informed Miss B that it was not reimbursing Mr B’s working hours and given her a further opportunity to claim the mileage.
33. In respect of the taxi service it said the Council had followed its policy and arranged the taxi as soon as it could. In respect of the confusion over pick-up on the first day, it said it was not usual practice to complete health and safety risk assessments as the child’s specific needs were considered as part of the tendering process, so it did not uphold the complaint. But it concluded that a review of current practice about information sharing and contingency planning would be beneficial.
34. It explained that the EHCP assessment request had been sent to the wrong Council and the Council had acted promptly as soon as it was aware of the mistake.
35. The Council agreed to send Miss B a mileage reimbursement form and to acknowledge letters containing documents regardless of whether any further action was going to be taken. It said appropriate measures had been put in place to ensure the confusion which occurred over the taxi pick-up would not be repeated.
36. Miss B complained to the Ombudsman again on 16 January 2019. In March 2019 we agreed to investigate.

Analysis

sent her son D to School Z which was unsuitable and failed to provide the correct support for him

37. We considered this complaint in our previous decision. I cannot look at it again. We also cannot consider the actions of the school.

delayed in providing taxi transport to the school and failed to make adequate collection arrangements initially

38. The Council arranged taxi transport within two weeks, which was well within the target in its policy. I accept it was after term started but Miss B did not secure a place for D until after the term had started. I further understand this was because the offer of transport was not made until August 2017 in the middle of the summer holidays. But I do not find fault with the Council’s actions here, because it was making a decision outside of its normal policy in an attempt to resolve the situation. We previously concluded this was a reasonable way of resolving the complaint.
39. The Council was at fault in not ensuring all parties were aware of the pick-up arrangements beforehand. But it acted promptly when it was notified of the problem and it did not recur. It has also carried out a review of current practice to prevent recurrences in the future. I do not consider any further action is necessary.

failed to adequately compensate Mr B for his costs in transporting D to school before the taxi was sorted out and for the after-school sessions

40. The Council agreed, as an exception to its policy, to reimburse Mr B’s mileage costs and sent Miss B a form in October 2017 to enable her to do this. However, it did not respond to her further when she submitted invoices. The complaint process found fault here and said it would send her a further reimbursement form. I consider the Council has taken far too long to clarify that it will not reimburse Mr B’s time.
41. But I do not find fault with the decision not to reimburse Mr B’s time in either situation. The Council’s transport panel in August 2017 said it did not consider Mr B’s working hours should be a barrier to transporting his child to school. It initially agreed to provide a taxi as a short-term measure only and as an exception to policy. It further agreed as an exception to its policy to refund the mileage costs for the two weeks when he had to transport D to school himself. It is not required to reimburse Mr B’s time and I can find no fault with the way it made its decision to only pay mileage costs.
42. Turning to the after-school sessions the Council’s policy only requires it to provide transport to and from school at the normal times. It asked the operator if it could accommodate the late request but unfortunately it could not. It has considered the circumstances in terms of its policy and reached a decision. I cannot find fault with the process it followed.

delayed in dealing with the request for an assessment for an education and health care plan

43. The Council dealt with the request very promptly when it was made aware of it. The delay in the form reaching the Council was not due to fault by the Council.

delayed excessively in dealing with the complaint.

44. Miss B first complained between August and October 2017. The Council did not properly respond to the transport complaint until January 2019. This was too long and caused Miss B frustration along with time and trouble in chasing up the matter. However, given that the amount of money involved is small (less than £50) and Miss B has been given the opportunity to claim the mileage again, I do not consider any further remedy is warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation as I consider the Council has taken sufficient action to put matters right in respect of the delay in dealing with the reimbursement issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman