Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to provide home to school transport assistance, causing financial loss and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to provide transport assistance for his daughter, Y, to return home from a residential school at the weekends. Mr X says the school is 100 miles away so he and his wife have suffered costs and inconvenience in travelling to the school for visits.

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 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, section 34(3), 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 spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered the comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Department for Education issues statutory guidance on home to school transport. This applies to home to school travel arrangements, whereby the “home” is the place where the child is habitually and normally resident.
7. The Council’s home to school transport policy explains its duty is only to assist children to and from school at the beginning and end of the school day.

Looked After Children

8. The term “looked after children” is defined in law under the Children Act 1989. A child is looked after by a council if he or she is in their care or is provided with accommodation for more than 24 hours by the council. Looked after children include those a council accommodates under a section 20 voluntary agreement with their parents.
9. When a council accommodates a child under section 20 it has a duty to promote contact between the child and their parents.

What happened

10. Y was in hospital for two years as a mental health in-patient.
11. The Council says Y’s parents and the hospital discussed and agreed for Y to attend a 52 week full time residential placement upon discharge.
12. In February 2019 the Council discussed discharge planning with the health authority and SEN team in a complex case meeting. I note a complex case discussion is a group talk amongst key professionals to review a case and identify options and solutions. Such a meeting would not usually include parents. I note the Council considered Y’s ongoing contact with her parents at this meeting.
13. Just prior to the start of the placement the Council offered to accommodate Y under a s20 agreement as a looked after child (“LAC”). Y’s parents did not initially agree to the offer. I note that LAC status places a duty on the Council to promote contact between Y and her parents.
14. In April Y entered the placement. Mr X then contacted the Council seeking a response to his application for school transport.
15. The Council explained Y needed a 52 week placement and therefore did not meet the criteria for home to school transport.
16. On 11 June 2019 Y became a Looked After Child with parental consent.
17. The Council says it considered it unsafe for Y to go home at the weekends. After Y became a LAC it offered a financial assessment to Mr X to see if it could help with the cost of fuel for their visits.
18. The Council has provided a copy of a care plan dated 25 June 2019 which shows it considered travel arrangements for Y. The plan notes the Council agreed with Y’s parents that Y would not travel home until 22 July and then any decision would be subject to further assessment.
19. On 5 August 2019 Y returned to hospital.
20. In comments on my draft decision Y’s parents disputed the Council’s view that Y should not travel home for the first three months of the placement.

Findings

21. The Council did not have to provide home to school transport because Y was in a 52 week full time placement that became her main residence or “home”. Therefore, I find no fault in the Council’s refusal to pay for transport under its home to school transport policy.
22. Once Y became a LAC the Council had a duty to promote contact between Y and her parents. The Council says it offered to help with fuel costs subject to a financial assessment. It also considered contact through the care planning process. I consider these actions were enough to discharge its duties.
23. There is no law or policy that says the Council must pay towards transport costs in the circumstances of this case. Rather the Council should consider contact arrangements between Y and her parents and how to promote this. I find no fault by the Council in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman