Summary: Mrs B complained about delay by the Council in arranging suitable transport for her son C to get to school. She had to drive him herself for an additional two months and was left without sufficient funds to do so for two weeks. We find the Council at fault for delay on two occasions and it has agreed to pay Mrs B a total of £750.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains that Dorset Council (the Council) in respect of her son’s (C’s) school transport arrangements:
• failed to arrange suitable transport for C on several occasions;
• failed to advise Mrs B that a personal travel budget was not her only option;
• gave her only one week’s notice of the unsuitable arrangements prior to the start of the autumn term;
• delayed in paying the personal travel budget leaving her out of pocket; and
• failed to offer any recompense for the extended period she was obliged to take C to school, despite the debilitating effects on her.

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. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

School transport

6. Councils have a duty to provide free home to school transport for pupils of compulsory school age (5-16) in certain circumstances. Councils must make ‘suitable travel arrangements’, ‘as they consider necessary’, for ‘eligible children’ to attend their ‘qualifying school’. This transport must be provided free of charge. The relevant ‘qualifying school’ is the nearest school with places available that provides ‘education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have’. ‘Eligible children’ include children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children between eight and 16).

What happened

7. Mrs B’s son C has special educational needs. The school named in his Education, Health and Care Plan is an hour’s drive away from their home.
8. He started at the school after Easter in 2018. In April 2018 the Council said it could not find any available transport to the school and offered Mrs B a Personal Travel Budget (PTB): a fixed amount of money paid directly to her each month to cover the costs of getting C to school, either by driving themselves or to cover the cost of public transport. The email said the arrangement could be reviewed at the end of the academic year and could continue if she was happy with it. It provided contact details if Mrs B wished to discuss it further.
9. Mrs B and her husband drove C to and from school until March 2019. They found it very time-consuming and the impact on their health was significant. Mrs B sent an email to the Council saying she could no longer transport C and asked how she could apply for a taxi or bus service.
10. The Council replied saying that as C needed a passenger assistant (PA) it could take approximately four months to recruit and train a PA. If he was able to share, it may be possible to arrange something in the next four weeks. Otherwise Mrs B could continue with her PTB until the end of the summer term and have transport in place for September 2019.
11. Mrs B said C might be able to share, but it would depend on the number of children as C was noise sensitive. She asked for details of which routes were available. If not, she was happy to carry on with the PTB until September 2019.
12. The Council came back with two routes; one was too busy due to the number of children and one was possible if the Council could hire a PA for C. The Council completed a referral form to arrange the transport for C for September. This form said that C did not need his own PA.
13. On 26 August 2019 the Council sent a proposed travel plan to Mrs B to start in September 2019. It proposed transporting C to school in a shared six-seater vehicle with two other children and one PA. The pick-up time would be 50 minutes earlier than he was currently used to and a longer journey home. Mrs B was concerned that C would not be able to manage this.
14. She contacted the Council who said that it was not aware that C needed his own PA and it could not change the route or the arrangements. Mrs B complained to the Council that she had given all the necessary information about C, including his need for a personal PA. From 4 September 2019 she was having to drive him to school and could not afford the fuel as she was no longer receiving any money.
15. The Council responded to the complaint on 17 September 2019. It accepted that it should have arranged a personal PA for C but did not do so because the referral form was unclear. It was looking to resolve the situation by providing another PA. and agreed to pay a PTB for the interim. It apologised for the further inconvenience this would cause to Mrs B
16. Mrs B escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. In addition to her original complaint she added that the Council had misled her originally by only offering a PTB.
17. The Council replied on 7 October 2019. It said that the PTB was offered in April 2018 as the only available solution at the time, but it was not intended to be a long-term option if she had been unhappy with it. It apologised for the time taken to find an alternative and for the recent delay in paying her the PTB for September (this was paid on 25 September 2019). It accepted that Mrs B had clearly stated C could share but only with his own PA and apologised for not providing this in September.
18. It agreed that C should travel in a taxi alone and arranged this to start from 4 November 2019.
19. Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

failed to arrange suitable transport for C on several occasions

20. In April 2019, the Council gave Mrs B the option of a shared route for C and said if this was not suitable it offered to continue the PTB while it arranged alternative PA provision. There was no fault here.
21. The Council competed the referral form wrongly which did not give full details of C’s needs or make clear he required a personal PA. This was fault which caused delay to the process: Mrs B had to transport C herself for a further two months while a personal PA was arranged.

failed to advise Mrs B that a personal travel budget was not her only option

22. In April 2018 the Council suggested a PTB as a solution until the end of the summer term. It offered to discuss the situation with Mrs B if she was not happy. Mrs B did not raise concerns with the arrangement until March 2019, so I do not find fault here.

gave her only one week’s notice of the unsuitable arrangements prior to the start of the autumn term

23. The short notice of the proposed arrangements would not have been a problem if the arrangements had been suitable. As Mrs B had waited five months for the proposals it exacerbated her frustration that they were inadequate and gave her very little time to resolve the problem, causing her distress. This was fault.

delayed in paying the personal travel budget leaving her out of pocket

24. The Council paid the PTB two weeks after C started school. I cannot say this was an excessive period of time, but the failure to make suitable arrangements for the start of term meant Mrs B was left without money for a significant amount of fuel for two weeks.

Agreed action

25. I considered, that in addition to the apology, the Council should pay Mrs B (within one month of my final decision)
• £500 for having to transport C to school for a further two months; and
• £250 for the distress of being without money for fuel for two weeks.
26. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I consider this is a proportionate way of recognising the injustice caused to Mrs B by the Council’s actions and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman