Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council refusal to rescind a warning it recorded about her son’s behaviour on a school bus. However, there is no evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with this matter.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains that the Council refused to rescind a warning recorded against her son after an incident on a school bus. I shall refer to Mrs C’s so as D.
2. Mrs C says that the Council went beyond its remit in recording the warning, because DfE guidance says that sanctions against students are to be made by the head teacher and not the school transport service.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mrs C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• considered the relevant legislation and Council policy; and
• spoke with Mrs C about her complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Policy & guidance

7. The Council’s ‘Home to School Transport Policy’ says at paragraph 9.8 ‘Parents/carers, schools, transport operators and the Local Authority all have an interest in behaviour on school transport. Each year, all parties are issued with the Local Authority’s ‘Code of Good Practice for Pupils’ guidance document’. Paragraph 9.10 of the policy says:

‘Where there are repeated instances of unacceptable behaviour, or a single incident of extreme unacceptable behaviour, which breach the ‘Code of Good Practice for Pupils’, the Local Authority reserves the right to temporarily or permanently withdraw transport. This will be determined in consultation with the child’s school; however, the final decision rests with the Transport Coordination Service’.

8. The Department for Education (DfE) has issued statutory guidance which authorities must follow when carrying out their duties in relation to home to school travel. Paragraph 47 of the DfE guidance says:

‘The department expects each school to promote appropriate standards of behaviour by pupils on their journey to and from school through rewarding positive behaviour and using sanctions to address poor behaviour.’

‘The Education and Inspections Act (EIA) 2006 empowers headteachers to take action to address unacceptable behaviour even when this takes place outside the school premises and when pupils are not under the legal control of the school, but when it is reasonable to do so. In the department’s view, this would include behaviour on school buses, or otherwise on the route to and from school, whether or not the pupils are in school uniform.’

9. Paragraph 48 of the guidance says:

A number of local authorities have adopted a policy of withdrawing transport, either for a temporary period, or permanently for more serious or repeated cases of misbehaviour. Equally, the behaviour of pupils outside school can be considered as grounds for exclusion. This will be a matter of judgment for the Headteacher. Local authorities might also consider that escorts are necessary to ensure safety of pupils on buses and can stipulate the provision of suitable escorts in their tender documents.

What happened

10. In April 2019, the Council were advised on an incident on a school bus involving Mrs C’s son D, where a window became dislodged.
11. The day after the incident, the Council received a referral which raised safeguarding concerns about the conduct of driver of the bus. This led to an investigation being carried out by the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), whose role is to oversee safeguarding investigations regarding allegations against staff and contractors.
12. The LADO investigation found that the driver was not able to manage the behaviour of the children on his bus, and sometimes played a game where he swerved the bus causing children to bump into each other.
13. The LADO recorded concerns that the driver had swerved the bus causing a near miss as the window was dislodged so easily.
14. The LADO also identified behavioural concerns of students on the bus and recommended that these be raised with school staff.
15. The Council say it consulted with the school about the matter, and it was decided that it would be dealt with as a behavioural incident.
16. Mrs C complained to the Council, stating that that the warning should not stand. She said that the warning should be rescinded, due to the outcome of the LADO investigation.
17. The Council said that the warning would remain on its records. It said that, the School had confirmed that student behaviour had been poor, and while the driver appeared to have acted in a way to encourage poor behaviour this did not excuse the behaviour.
18. Mrs C says that the Council went beyond its remit, because DfE guidance says that sanctions against students are to be made by the head teacher and not the school transport service.

Analysis

19. Mrs C complains that the Council went beyond its remit because DfE guidance states that sanctions against students are to be made by the head teacher and not the school transport service.
20. The DfE guidance does state that it expects schools to promote good behaviour on buses, and the EIA 2006 gives schools the powers to act against poor behaviour on buses.
21. However, the DfE guidance does not state that the duty to manage behaviour lies solely with schools, merely that there’s an expectation that schools will promote good behaviour. In fact, the policy goes on to say that many Councils have a policy which allows them to withdraw transport on the grounds of poor behaviour.
22. It is for these reasons that I do not find fault with the Council having a policy in place, which allows it to respond to incidents of poor behaviour on its school buses.
23. The Council’s policy does not refer to the issuing of warnings to pupils. However, it does state that repeated instances of unacceptable behaviour may result in transport being withdrawn. It therefore seems logical for warnings to be recorded to manage and challenge the issue of repeated instances of unacceptable behaviour.
24. Upon concluding their investigation, the LADO made the decision that behavioural issues should be raised with the School.
25. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision made without fault. The decision to record the warning was made in line with the Council’s school transport policy and I am therefore unable to find fault. I am therefore unable to criticise this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman