Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not agree to backdate payments for school transport assistance. Mrs B says she had to pay several thousand pounds on taxi fares, which the Council should have funded. The Council has now offered to refund the taxi fees. The Ombudsman will discontinue the investigation as it is unlikely we would recommend a significantly different remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs B, complains the Council refused her request for continued school transport assistance when she moved home in 2016. She says in 2019 her support practitioner challenged this decision. The Council agreed to pay for school transport going forward but did not agree to backdate to 2016.
2. Mrs B says the Council should have provided transport assistance between 2016 and 2019. Because it did not, she had to pay for taxi fares privately. Mrs B says the Council should backdate transport assistance to cover the taxi fares she paid for from her own money.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 considered the information provided by Mrs B. I made enquiries of the Council and discussed the complaint further with Mrs B. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs B and the Council for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mrs B’s daughter has an education, care and health plan (“ECHP”) for special educational needs. Her school is stated in the plan.
7. Before 2016, Mrs B received transport assistance from the Council, which paid for her daughter’s taxi travel to and from her school. In February 2016, Mrs B moved home and asked the Council to continue paying for transport to the school from her new address. The Council declined her request as it said the school was no longer her daughter’s closest school.
8. Mrs B asked to appeal the decision and the Council sent her a form to do so. Mrs B says this was a means tested form and she did not meet the criteria so did not appeal.
9. Mrs B self-funded her daughter’s taxi travel to school until 2019. Mrs B says this was at a cost of £6,801.80.
10. In late 2018, Mrs B’s support practitioner said she was entitled to transport assistance as the school was named in her daughter’s ECHP. The practitioner raised this with the Council who then agreed to provide transport assistance going forward. However, the Council said it would not backdate payments to 2016 as Mrs B did not appeal in 2016.
11. Mrs B says she did not appeal because she did not meet the means testing criteria. However, she says the Council should have provided transport assistance and so should backdate to 2016.
12. In response to my enquiries, the Council says that, in 2016, it did not enquiry at the closer school to ensure it could take Mrs B’s daughter. If it had done so, and the school could have taken the daughter, then it would have updated the ECHP. If Mrs B continued to send her daughter to the school further away, this would have been parental preference and Mrs B would be liable for transport. However, it did not contact the school so was not in a position to say it was the closest school the daughter could have attended.
13. The Council has offered to reimburse the cost of taxi fares Mrs B paid dating back to 2016. It says the Council will need evidence of the expenditure.

Findings

14. I will discontinue my investigation.
15. I was investigating whether there was fault in how the Council made its 2019 decision not to backdate. In investigating this, I would have needed to look at how the Council considered events in 2016.
16. The Council has now looked back and decided to reimburse the taxi fares based on a review of its actions in 2016. I understand this is the main outcome Mrs B wished to achieve from the complaint. It is unlikely I would have recommended anything substantially different. If I had found fault, I would likely have recommended the Council review its decision not to backdate. It has already done this. It would therefore not be proportionate for me to continue to investigate whether there was fault in its 2019 decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will discontinue this complaint on the basis the Council has offered a remedy and it is unlikely I would recommend anything substantially different. It would therefore not be proportionate for me to continue with the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman