Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her school transport refund request and its decision to complete a fraud investigation. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to provide Miss X with information about what transport costs she could claim for. I do not find fault with the Council’s other actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her school transport refund request and its decision to complete a fraud investigation. Miss X complains about the following.

• The Council did not tell her before she submitted her claim that she could not apply for a refund for return taxis and for waiting times. She said the Council had previously paid her for return taxis.
• The Council completed a fraud investigation without proper reason. She says the Council did not try and contact her about its concerns about her refund claims first.
• There were delays in the refund process. Miss X says its took the Council approximately four months and three weeks to process her refund.
• The Council will not allow her to claim for cost of transport to school between September 2017 and May 2018.

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 with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent two draft decisions to Miss X and the Council for their comments.
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s counter-fraud, bribery and corruption guidance

9. The purpose of the guidance is to provide advice on what fraud is, how to identify it, and what the Council’s response to fraud is.
10. The guidance highlights that fraud is where a person is dishonest in their actions in order to cause a loss to the Council or expose the Council to a potential loss.
11. The guidance states the Counter Fraud and Investigation department is responsible for dealing with any cases of suspected fraud, not the police. It notes that it is the responsibility of every Council worker to look for and report any possible fraud taking place.
12. The guidance notes that the Council has a dedicated team to investigate instances of suspected fraud. The guidance does not set out when the Council will complete investigations and does not outline any criteria to be met before an investigation can be started.

Background

13. Miss X previously made a complaint to the Ombudsman in regarding the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for her son, A. Miss X had applied for free school transport in September 2017.
14. The Ombudsman investigated Miss X’s complaint and issued a decision in March 2018, which found no fault with the Council’s decision not to provide free school transport. The Ombudsman found the Council’s decision was made in accordance with statutory guidance and the Council’s school transport policy.
15. In May 2018, Miss X submitted new medical evidence to support her claim for free school transport. The Council agreed to provide free school transport for A in February 2019.

What happened

16. Following the Council’s decision to provide free school transport for A, Miss X asked the Council to provide a refund for the taxis she had been paying to take A to school.
17. The Council agreed to this request and told Miss X in April 2019 she could only claim for the period May 2018 until February 2019. The Council said this was because Miss X only submitted the new medical evidence, which led to the decision to provide transport, in May 2018. The Council did not provide further information as to what taxi fares Miss X could claim for. Miss X said she was not aware she could not claim for her return taxi in the morning.
18. In April 2019, Miss X submitted her refund claim and provided copies of her taxi receipts. These receipts included the costs Miss X incurred for the taxi waiting and returning her home in the morning.
19. The Council said the charges were quite high, so it made enquiries with its licensing department. The Council also cross referenced the submitted receipts with A’s school attendance record. The Council said it found discrepancies as Miss X had claimed for journeys when the school was either closed or when A was absent. Miss X said she had been waiting for the school to confirm the attendance figures and that was why there were discrepancies.
20. Miss X was unhappy with the time taken to process her refund request and made a complaint at the end of April 2019.
21. The Council made a referral to its fraud department in May 2019. The fraud team decided to investigate the matter and advised no contact with Miss X while the investigation was in progress.
22. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in May 2019. It apologised for the delay but advised the process took time. The Council did not tell Miss X the reason for the delay was because it was completing a fraud investigation. The Council did not have any further contact with Miss X in May 2019.
23. In July 2019, the Council’s complaints department asked Miss X to obtain a copy of A’s school attendance records. The Council explained this was needed to cross reference her claims for taxi journeys. Miss X provided the Council with a copy of the attendance record the next day.
24. The Council’s fraud department completed a voluntary interview with Miss X in July 2019. In this interview, Miss X accepted she did not check the taxi receipts provided by the taxi driver before submitting them as she had trusted these would be correct. Miss X explained she had not done this deliberately as she had willingly provided A’s school attendance record. Miss X said she had also told the Council to remove any dates where there were discrepancies.
25. Near the end of August 2019, the Council’s fraud department completed its investigation. It decided to take no further action against Miss X.
26. Miss X’s refund claim amounted to just over £4200. At the end of August, the Council made a payment to Miss X of just over £2200.
27. The Council explained it had deducted the wait and return fares as Miss X was not entitled to a refund on these costs. It also deducted the claims for journeys when A was absent from school and when the school was closed.

Analysis

Refund for cost of transport to school between September 2017 and May 2018.

28. In March 2018, the Ombudsman investigated Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide school transport and found no fault with the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman found the Council’s decision had been made in line with statutory guidance and its school transport policy.
29. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council’s decision to only provide a refund on taxi costs between May 2018 and February 2019. This is because it is clear from the evidence A was not entitled to receive free school transport between September 2017 and May 2018.

Information provided to Miss X prior to her refund claim

30. Miss X said the Council did not tell her she could not claim for the cost of her return taxi in the morning.
31. There is no evidence the Council explained to Miss X she could not claim for the costs of the return taxis home. The evidence shows the Council only told her she was eligible to claim for the period May 2018 to February 2019. It would have been good practice for the Council to have told Miss X exactly what she could claim for. Given the Council provided Miss X with no information as to what costs she could claim, I can understand why Miss X submitted a claim for a refund of her return taxi journeys.
32. This is fault. I consider the fault caused Miss X an injustice because there is uncertainty as to what may have happened if the Council had told Miss X what she could claim for. It is not possible to know whether Miss X would have claimed for the wait and return fare and whether this would have affected the Council’s decision to refer Miss X to the fraud team.

Council’s fraud investigation

33. The evidence shows the team dealing with Miss X’s refund claim had concerns about the amounts she was claiming for. It also noted Miss X had submitted receipts for days when A was not in school, or where the school was closed.
34. The Council’s guidance on fraud is clear the responsibility for investigating potential fraud lies with the Counter Fraud and Investigation department. It also notes that everyone is responsible for looking out and reporting suspected fraud.
35. Therefore, there is no fault in Miss X’s refund claim being referred to the fraud department. This is because there was concerns about Miss X’s claim and the guidance highlights that where there is suspected fraud, it should be reported.

Delays with her refund

36. The evidence shows Miss X first submitted her refund claim at the beginning of April 2019. The Council referred the claim to its fraud department in May 2019. The investigation did not conclude until the end of August 2019.
37. Therefore, it is clear the delays with the refund was caused by the fraud investigation. This is because the Council could not have refunded Miss X until the fraud investigation had concluded.
38. As there is no policy or guidance which sets out any timescales for fraud investigations, I cannot find fault with the time the Council took to complete the fraud investigation.
39. Following the conclusion of the fraud investigation, the Council made a payment to Miss X a week later. The Council explained there was a slight delay as it had to work out how much Miss X was entitled to receive back after deducting the costs she was not entitled a refund on. I do not consider this to be an excessive delay and therefore do not find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Agreed actions

40. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified, the Council agreed to complete the following:
• Apologise to Miss X for failing to provide her with information about what transport costs she could claim for.
• Put in place a clear policy which outlines what parents can claim for when the Council is refunding school transport costs.
41. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find fault with the Council for failing to provide Miss X with information about what transport costs she could claim for. I do not find fault with the Council’s other actions. The Council has agreed with my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman