Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about problems with his son’s home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the conduct of the driver and passenger assistant on his son’s home to school transport. He is unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his concerns.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of the driver and passenger assistant on his son’s home to school transport. He was particularly concerned about comments made by the passenger assistant on Friday 03 May. But his complaint also included:
• The driver and passenger assistant being rude to Mr X and his wife.
• The passenger assistant insisting Mr X’s son sits in the back of the vehicle despite wanting to sit in the front.
• The passenger assistant making inappropriate comments to his son and complaining that he keeps screaming and shouting.
• Mr X and his wife being treated differently because they are from Pakistan.
5. Mr X asked the Council to provide CCTV footage from the taxi so he could see what happened on Friday 03 May.
6. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. The investigating officer spoke to the passenger assistant and considered a statement from the driver. They looked at text messages between Mr X and the passenger assistant, spoke with the Council’s licensing officer about the driver, and asked for a copy of the CCTV footage.
7. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said the passenger assistant made every effort to deal appropriately with Mr X’s son. There was no evidence the driver or passenger assistant ignored Mr X and his wife or were rude to them. Mr X’s son was placed in the vehicle where he was considered safest. There was no evidence Mr X and his wife were treated differently because of where they were from. The Council had tried to obtain the CCTV footage, but the in-car recorder was defective. It explained there was no way the driver could have known this, but he now had 28 days to replace the equipment.
8. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We cannot question a council’s decision if there is no evidence of fault in how the decision was reached. We are not an appeal body and have no power to discipline council employees.
9. There is a clear difference of opinion between Mr X and the Council about what happened. But this is not evidence of fault. Mr X raised concerns with the Council and it investigated. This involved speaking to the people it considered most relevant to the complaint. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not speak to a relative, who he says witnessed the incident, on Friday 03 May. He also says the investigating officer did not speak to the member of staff at his child’s school who his wife first reported her concerns to. But it was for the investigating officer to decide who to speak to as part of their investigation. The Council has provided Mr X with what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses to his complaint. I do not consider there to be enough evidence of fault in the way the investigation was carried out to warrant our involvement.
10. Also, without any additional evidence, such as CCTV footage, it is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response, or would lead to a different outcome. It is for the Council to decide how to manage its staff, and we could not recommend it remove the passenger assistant, driver, or take disciplinary action.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaints. But we will not look at a council’s complaint handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. This applies here.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman