Summary: Mr B complains that the Council failed to safeguard his daughter when she was using transport it provided. He also says it failed to investigate when she returned from school with puncture wounds. The Ombudsman finds the Council took appropriate action in relation to Mr B’s concerns, but it failed to provide a formal response to his first complaint and the SEN team failed to contact him to discuss his request for support for his daughter. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed that it will apologise to Mr B and that the SEN team will contact him about his request for support.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to safeguard his daughter who was subjected to abuse by the transport provider acting on its behalf. In particular, he says the Council:
• failed to act in an appropriate or timely fashion in relation to concerns he raised in December 2018;
• failed to act on emails he sent after it contacted the transport provider on 7 January 2019 resulting in a further incident on 11 January 2019;
• delayed in responding to his complaint; and
• failed to investigate his complaint that his daughter returned from school with puncture wounds on her wrist and back.
2. Mr B says the Council’s failings caused the family distress and anxiety.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
6. Mr B 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

Key facts

7. Mr B’s daughter, C, has autism and does not speak. She was receiving travel assistance from the Council in the form of shared transport to school.
8. On 22 December 2018 Mr B raised concerns with his local councillor that the taxi company (Company Y) was exposing vulnerable children to unnecessary risks. He had CCTV footage of the passenger assistant being aggressive and unprofessional whilst dropping C home.
9. The service director telephoned Mr B to discuss his concerns and agreed to pass them on to the admissions and transport manager, Officer X, for further investigation. Mr B said he was concerned about the attitude and behaviour of one of the passenger assistants and the driver beeping the horn on arrival at his house causing C distress. He said he had raised his concerns with Company Y but felt they had not been taken seriously. He described an incident on 10 December 2018 where the passenger assistant was rude to his wife and offered to provide the CCTV footage.
10. On 31 December 2018 Officer X spoke to Mr B who sent the CCTV footage to him. Officer X was unable to view the footage and Mr B re-sent it in a viewable format on 2 January 2019.
11. Officer X viewed the CCTV footage and sent an email to Company Y at 2.30 pm on 7 January 2019 explaining Mr B’s concerns and requesting confirmation that the driver would no longer beep the horn when collecting or dropping off children. He also referred to a verbal altercation between the passenger assistant and a parent and said this behaviour was unacceptable. He explained the Council expected all drivers and passenger assistants to act in a calm and professional manner.
12. Officer X sent an email to Mr B confirming the action taken. Mr B responded at 5.45 pm the same day stating there had been no change. The bus was still beeping on arrival and C was still distressed. He said he did not trust the passenger assistant and the owner of Company Y had no concern for the staff’s actions as no changes had been made despite the Council’s email. Mr B sent a further email at 10.40 pm.
13. On 11 January 2019 Mr B wrote to Officer X informing him of a further incident. He sent CCTV footage which showed the driver beep the horn when the minibus pulled up outside Mr B’s property. The passenger assistant dragged C off the bus and, when Mrs B asked her not to manhandle C, she was subjected to verbal abuse and swearing in front of C.
14. Mr B said he considered the Council had failed to take appropriate action to safeguard C who is a vulnerable child. He said the staff on the bus had no SEN training and did not report any incidents that arose. He said the Council had failed to take action to deal with the matter and he had serious concerns for C’s welfare while on the minibus so he would no longer allow her to travel with Company Y.
15. The Council moved C to solo transport with a new transport provider, Company Z, from 14 January 2019 as an interim measure. It agreed to review the case in greater depth with the family to determine the ongoing travel assistance for C.
16. On 14 January 2019 the Council wrote to Mr B advising that Company Y had terminated the passenger assistant’s employment and asked whether he would like C to re-join the vehicle. Mr B declined the offer because he had no trust in Company Y.
17. In February 2019 the complaints team met with Mr B to discuss his concerns.
18. On 22 May 2019 Mr B sent an email to the Council saying C had returned home from school on 16 May 2019 with two puncture wounds. He asked the Council to investigate. He also said the Council had provided no support to C to help her cope with the anxiety and stress caused by the incidents in December 2018 and January 2019. He said C had refused to go in the taxi and the passenger assistant employed by Company Z could not handle her. He asked whether C could be moved to a closer school and said she needed specialist help to overcome the stress and anxiety.
19. Officer X telephoned Mr B the same day to discuss the issues. Mr B said he wanted to move C to a closer school and explained he had been expecting the Council to provide C with some support to help with her anxiety as a result of the incidents. Officer X said he was unaware Mr B had been expecting the Council to provide such support. He confirmed he would contact the SEN team to see whether there was any support that could be considered for C but could not guarantee it would be offered.
20. On 29 May 2019 Officer X wrote to Mr B again confirming he had contacted the SEN team and asked them to contact Mr B about C’s school placement and any pastoral support that may be available.
21. On 31 May 2019 Officer X wrote to Mr B explaining the Council had not received any reports from Company Z about any injuries to C. He had discussed this with them but they were unaware of any incidents on the vehicle. He asked Mr B to provide details of the date of the alleged incident and what he believed happened so that he could investigate further. He also reiterated that he had asked the SEN team to look into whether there was any pastoral support available for C but Mr B would need to contact the SEN team direct to follow this up.
22. Mr B responded stating it was not his responsibility to find out who caused the injuries to C and requested the Chief Executive’s contact details. The same day the complaints office contacted Mr B by telephone and email requesting the opportunity to discuss his concerns.
23. On 5 June 2019 Mr and Mrs B re-applied for home to school transport for C stating they wanted the current arrangements to continue.
24. On 18 July 2019 Mr B submitted a complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate C’s injuries.
25. On 19 July 2019 the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs B confirming their application for school transport had been considered and C would be offered shared transport from the beginning of next term.
26. The Council sent a stage 1 response to Mr B’s complaint on 12 August 2019.
27. On 14 August 2019 Mr B responded to the Council’s stage 1 response and escalated his complaint to stage 2. The Council responded on 3 September 2019 but did not uphold his complaint. On the same day, Officer X wrote to Mr B and offered solo transport for C until July 2020.

Analysis

Failure to act in an appropriate or timely fashion in relation to concerns Mr B raised in December 2018

28. I am satisfied with the Council’s response to the concerns Mr B raised in December 2018. On the third working day after receipt of the CCTV footage, it sent an email to Company Y setting out its expectations. I consider this was a timely and proportionate response. I do not consider the Council should have taken any further action at that stage.
29. Mr B says he initially raised concerns with the Council in November 2018 but I have seen no evidence to substantiate this.
30. Mr B says the contents of Officer X’s email to Company Y differed from what the officer told him he would say but I have seen nothing to suggest this was the case.

Failure to act on emails Mr B sent in January 2019

31. Mr B says if the Council had acted on the two emails he sent after it contacted Company Y on 7 January 2019, the incident on 11 January 2019 would not have happened.
32. I find the Council was not at fault in failing to contact Company Y following Mr B’s emails on 7 January 2019. The Council sent an email to Company Y at 2.30 pm and Mr B sent emails to the Council at 5.45 pm and 10.40 pm the same day stating that nothing had changed. It was not unreasonable for the Council to allow Company Y time to pass on the information in its email to its employees. It may not have been possible for the company to do so before close of business the same day. I would not therefore expect the Council to take any further action unless Mr B had raised further concerns a day or two later.
33. Mr B says the Council should have provided support to help C deal with the anxiety resulting from the incidents in December 2018 and January 2019. However, there is no evidence he requested this at the time. The Council offered sole transport for C to address Mr B’s concerns and he was happy with this. The first evidence that Mr B requested support for C was in his email of 22 May 2019. The following day Officer X agreed to ask the SEN team whether they could provide support but advised he could not guarantee this. He asked the SEN team to contact Mr B about C’s school placement and any support that may be available. It did not do so. This was fault. However, Officer X also advised Mr B to contact the SEN team directly but he did not do so.

Delay in responding to Mr B’s complaint

34. In January 2019 the Council agreed to review matters in greater depth with the family to determine the ongoing travel assistance for C. Mr B says this never happened. But the Council’s complaints team met with the family in February 2019 to discuss the issues.
35. Mr B says he again raised his concerns about what had happened at the meeting and was assured by the manager for social care complaints that a corporate complaint would be raised. The Council has provided notes of this meeting which show that the manager agreed to ensure Mr B’s complaint about the transport problems had been formally raised and that she would refer his concerns to the SEN transport manager.
36. Mr B has provided a statement from a local councillor who was present at the meeting. He states it was agreed that a corporate investigation would be undertaken into Mr B’s complaint.
37. The Council accepts it did not formally register Mr B’s complaint despite agreeing to do so at the meeting and has apologised for this. It says the social care manager passed Mr B’s concerns to the SEN transport manager who confirmed the escort had changed and C was now going to school in a vehicle without other children as requested by Mr B and disciplinary action had been taken against the escort so the Council considered the matter had been dealt with by the SEN transport manager.
38. I find the Council was at fault in failing to complete a formal investigation of Mr B’s complaint when it had agreed to do so. This caused him a significant injustice because he did not feel his concerns had been taken seriously.
39. On 18 July 2019 Mr B submitted a complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate C’s injuries. The Council sent a stage 1 response on 12 August 2019. In accordance with the Council’s procedures, it should have sent a response within 10 working days though there was a delay of seven working days. Whilst this is not ideal, I do not consider this to be a significant delay. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 August 2019 and the Council issued a stage 2 response on 3 September 2019. This was within the Council’s timescale of 15 working days.

Failure to investigate Mr B’s complaint that C returned home with puncture wounds

40. Mr B did not report the puncture wounds to the Council until 22 May 2019 despite finding them and notifying the school on 16 May. The Council followed up the matter by contacting C’s school and Company Z but neither were aware of any incidents. The Council asked Mr B to provide further information so it could investigate the matter but he did not do so.
41. In these circumstances, I find no grounds to criticise the Council for failing to investigate further. C’s injuries were not significant and there was nothing the Council could follow up as neither Mr B, the school or Company Z were able to provide any information.

Agreed action

42. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• send a written apology to Mr B for failing to formally investigate the complaint he made in January 2019 despite agreeing to do so; and
• issue a reminder to staff to make a contemporaneous notes of telephone calls and meetings and retain these for future reference.
43. The Council has also agreed that the SEN team will contact Mr B to discuss whether support can be provided for C.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find the Council failed to provide a formal response to Mr B’s first complaint despite agreeing to do so.
45. I find the SEN team failed to contact Mr B to discuss his request for support for C.
46. I do not uphold the remainder of Mr B’s complaints.
47. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman