Summary: Ms B complains about the actions of a bus driver who provides home to school transport for her disabled son. The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation as no worthwhile outcome could be achieved.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains a bus driver providing school transport for her son, C, who has autism, was unsympathetic towards him and rude about him.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe, for example:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered all the information submitted by Ms B about her complaint. I obtained a copy of the complaint correspondence from the Council. I provided Ms B and the Council with a draft of this decision and gave them the opportunity to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B’s son, C, was four years old at the time of the events complained of. He has a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder and he is non-verbal. He started school in September 2018 and prior to this had gone happily on a bus to nursery.
5. The home to school transport arranged for him by the Council was provided by Brighton and Hove Community Transport. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers.
6. Ms B says that on the first day of school the bus driver did not smile or act sympathetically, and said that if C cried his mother would have to take him to school herself. Ms B says that on the way to school her son had ‘a meltdown’ and that the driver restrained him and remarked in front of another parent: “I used to have a cry baby last year and now I have got this one". Ms B says that half-way through the journey driver decided he could not continue with the child on the bus so rang her to come and collect him. In another incident Ms B says a relative she had asked to collect the child from the bus was ten minutes late and the driver was furious and dragged the child down the bus ‘like a sack of potatoes’.
7. Following these incidents Ms B began to take her son to school herself, which was very difficult for her, and costly.
8. Ms B made a formal complaint. Responding at the first stage of the complaints procedure, the Council said CCTV footage taken in the minibus 12 September was no longer available as it had been overwritten, but footage taken between the 12 and 17 September 2018 had been reviewed and it contained no footage of inappropriate language or comments by the driver, or evidence of him becoming quick to anger, or of other issues on the journeys.
9. The Council said that footage from the morning of 17 September showed C coming out of his front door crying and not wanting to stand or enter the bus, at which the driver carries C onto the bus and is then heard talking to him to placate him. On the afternoon of the same day the CCTV footage shows the minibus is stationary for about 20 minutes outside Ms B’s house awaiting collection of the child. The Council said the footage showed the child starting to become agitated shortly before the family member arrived to collect him. It said the driver and escort were becoming frustrated at the wait and the fact that child had not been collected and could be heard discussing the situation and calling their office to try and contact a parent for child. The Council said that when C’s relative arrived the driver said: “You’re late and we are not having this”, and then he lifted C out of the seat. The Council said at this point C tried to go to the floor, after which the driver picked him up around the waist and carried him off the bus.
10. The Council partially upheld Ms B’s complaint as it acknowledged the driver should not be moving children on or off the bus. It said the management at Community Transport has been asked to remind drivers and escorts that they should not carry children onto or out of the vehicles as this is the parent’s responsibility as outlined to parents in the Council’s guidelines issued to parents.
11. Ms B’s complaint was escalated to the next stage of the Council’s procedure at her request, as she remained dissatisfied. It said the driver had denied making the comments alleged by Ms B. and given the lack of evidence it could not progress this investigation further. Regarding the incident on the afternoon of 17 September, the Council referred to C slipping under his seatbelt and onto the floor and to the driver saying: “We can't have this” and “We won't be able to have him on the bus tomorrow”. The Council noted these comments were meant for the passenger assistant on the bus, but accepted it was something that should have been discussed after the school run with managers rather than on the bus potentially in front of other children and their parents. The driver had accepted this was wrong and apologised.

Analysis

12. As set out in paragraph 2 above, the Ombudsman must consider what might be achieved in undertaking an investigation at the public expense. In this case, Ms B would like a different driver to be assigned to her son’s bus route, or for him to be given a place on an alternative bus. This is not something the Ombudsman could reasonably recommend.
13. I have considered the circumstances of the case. Relevant factors include the limited evidence available; the steps already taken (which include an apology from the driver and an offer to meet with Ms C to discuss her concerns, plus a reminder to staff that it was not appropriate for them to move children onto or off the vehicle); and the fact that it is for the Council (or its contractors) to determine how best to deploy its staff. Taking account of these factors it is unlikely I could add to the previous investigation by the Council or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome, and I could not achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have discontinued my investigation for the reasons set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman