Summary: Mr X complained about repeated problems with the taxi transport the Council provided to take his son to school. There were failings in the transport arrangements causing distress and inconvenience to Mr X and his son. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy including a payment and some action to take in relation to the transport operator.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that:
1. there were repeated problems with the taxi transport the Council provided to take his son to school; and
2. the Council has failed to deal properly with his complaint about this matter.
2. As a result he says his son, who has special educational needs, has experienced distress and anxiety and has missed lessons. Also Mr X says he has lost income and incurred extra expenses in taking his son to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
6. 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

Home to school transport duties

7. Under the Education Act 1996 councils must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for children of compulsory school age to attend school in certain circumstances set out in the Act.
8. Statutory guidance ‘Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance’ says “for arrangements to be suitable, they must also be safe and reasonably stress free, to enable the child to arrive at school ready for a day of study”.

Council contracted transport providers

9. To make a successful bid to operate a home to school transport route for the Council, operators need to meet the Council’s criteria for the provision of passenger transport services.
10. The Council has a guide for transport operators which includes requirements for training, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks of drivers.
11. Under the terms and conditions of its Supplier Agreement, operators have a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to meet. They must report their results every month or quarter, depending on the contract. The KPIs cover:
1. Operator complaints
2. Compliments
3. Council complaints
4. Punctuality, Local Bus
5. Punctuality, Home to School
6. Reliability
7. Customer satisfaction.
12. The Council says it uses KPIs “to monitor performance and ensure delivery of services in accordance with the contract and specification; to drive service improvement; to look for continuous improvement with performing suppliers; to compare operator performance between suppliers and over time; and to target our resources to those causing more concern.”

What happened

13. Mr X has a son, Y, who is autistic and has special educational needs. The Council was providing free home to school transport for Y in the form of a taxi with two other children. I will refer to the company the Council contracted to provide the transport from September 2019 as ‘the Operator’.
14. On 18 November 2019 Mr X sent a complaint to the Council about the Operator and asked for another company to provide transport for his son. He complained that:
• on five separate occasions, including that day, the taxi was more than half an hour late,
• previously substitute drivers had picked up the children in the wrong order, making the journey longer and causing distress to the children,
• a driver had once locked the children in the car in order to be able to use the toilet.
15. The Council sent the complaint to the Operator on 27 November and asked for a response. It also asked for information about any issues since the complaint.
16. The Operator replied to the Council in early December after interviewing the driver. It explained that the usual driver had been unwell and it had used relief drivers. It said due to the location of drivers it had had to change the sequence of the pick-ups. It gave an explanation for the driver’s actions when the children had been locked in the car. It said the driver was running late as one of the children was not ready at the appointed pick-up time. This meant the driver had not been able to stop for a toilet break where intended but had to stop at another location, which was covered by CCTV. The Operator said it was an emergency and it believed the driver had taken the safest option available and acted appropriately given the circumstances. It said it would not be taking any further action. It offered an apology to Mr X.
17. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint the following day, passing on the information from the Operator. It said it understood the original driver was now back on the route.
18. Mr X wrote back to the Council the same day saying he did not find the Operator’s response acceptable. He said he was concerned about serious safeguarding issues with the company and about what would happen if the original driver became ill again. He said he would copy the correspondence to a number of Council officers and Members.
19. The Council referred the matter back to the Operator as a further complaint and asked for a “comprehensive response to the points raised”. The Operator replied with further detail about the checks made on all relief drivers and the instructions given to them about keeping to the scheduled routes. It said on the day the relief driver was running late the driver made a ‘wrong decision’ to vary the route. It apologised for the last minute notice and said it was unlikely to happen again as the new relief driver lived close to Mr X’s address. It said it had spoken to all staff involved, including relief drivers, and reminded them of the standards required. It confirmed that while it recognised the situation was not ideal it believed the driver had taken the safest option on the day of the ‘lock-in’ incident for the reasons given previously. It offered Mr X apologies again.
20. The Council responded to Mr X in mid-December 2019. It said a meeting had taken place with the Operator to discuss the incident and ensure the driver’s actions were dealt with appropriately. It said the Council was satisfied the Operator had handled the matter appropriately through its internal process. The driver passed on apologies for the concern and distress caused. The Council said although the Operator could not guarantee the same driver at all times, it did not expect this driver to be on the route in future. It said the Council had now dealt with the complaint in line with its complaints policy and Mr X could contact the Ombudsman if he was not satisfied.
21. On 19 December 2019 Mr X contacted the Council about a further incident. He said the driver had failed to turn up. When he contacted the driver to find out what was happening she said she assumed Y was not going in to school as he had been ill the previous day. She had sent a text to Mr X at 6am asking if Y was going to school. When Mr X did not reply straightaway she assumed he was not going. Mr X took his son to school himself.
22. Mr X also contacted the Operator directly to explain what had happened. The General Manager replied the following day confirming the incident should not have happened. He said drivers were instructed to go to collect passengers unless they receive confirmation from the parent or carer that the child is not going to school. He apologised for the inconvenience and urged Mr X to contact him if he needed any further help as “‘it appears from your email that you have deeper concerns which have not been addressed”.
23. Mr X wrote to the Operator setting out ‘a string of incidents’ that had occurred since it took on the route in September 2019. As well as the ‘lock-in’ incident he described occasions when substitute drivers had turned up late, not known the location of the next pick-up or the route or how to use the system to find the route. He said on the latest occasion when the driver had failed to turn up he had had to cancel a work commitment in order to take Y to school.
24. In the meantime, on the advice of the Councillor Mr X had been in correspondence with, he contacted the Licencing Officer at the District Council which licences the taxi drivers for the Operator. The Licencing Officer said as it was about a school transport contract it was a matter for Essex County Council. He contacted the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). This is the officer who deals with allegations against people who work with children.
25. The LADO discussed the matter with the officer in the Council’s Passenger Transport Department who had responded to Mr X's complaints. The LADO contacted the Licencing Officer. The Council’s records say the LADO agreed with the Licencing Officer “that there is no remit for either himself or the LADO to become involved in this matter as the complaint had been investigated with the employer [the Operator] by [the Council’s] Passenger Transport Department and the parent advised to take his complaint to the next stage if he so wishes.” The record contains copies of the previous correspondence about Mr X’s complaint.
26. On 6 January 2020 the Council replied to Mr X’s 19 December complaint. It said it had investigated the incident and understood Mr X had been in contact with the company and received an apology as drivers are instructed to pick up passengers unless told otherwise. The Council said it would continue to monitor the transport over the coming term.
27. The same day Mr X sent a further complaint to the Council saying the incident was the latest of five incidents involving four different drivers. He said the Council was not dealing with the issue which had caused distress to his child and substantial loss of income to him.
28. In its response the Council said it had noted Mr X’s concerns and highlighted them with the Passenger Transport Team. It advised him to contact the Ombudsman if he wished to take his complaint further.
29. In February 2020 Mr X sent two further complaints to the Council about two new incidents in which the Operator had sent substitute drivers without any advance warning. He said his son finds sudden changes of routine distressing. He also questioned how he could know whether the driver who arrived was genuine and working for the Operator.
30. The Council referred these complaints on to the Operator with enquiries about what had happened and about the Operator’s practice when the regular driver is not available for a route for children with special educational needs.
31. The Operator replied explaining the particular emergency circumstances that had resulted in the regular driver not being available on the days Mr X was referring to. It said it had arranged a relief driver straightaway. However it recognised it needed to improve its communications with parents. It said it would be introducing a text service to tell parents about any significant changes. It explained the various checks the drivers had to go through before obtaining private hire licences. It said drivers should always wear their private hire licence badge which confirms they hold a current enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. These badges may be inspected at any time.
32. The Council replied to Mr X explaining the outcome of its enquiry.
33. In early March 2020 Mr X made a further complaint as he said a substitute driver had arrived 20 minutes late. He also said the Operator had been using a smaller vehicle since January. He was concerned it was not big enough to transport three autistic children safely. He said that more recently one of the children had hit his son during a journey.
34. Shortly afterwards Mr X and his family moved out of the Council’s area. I am not aware of any response to his March 2020 complaint.

Council’s response to enquiries

35. The Council apologised for the distress caused by the incident when the children were locked in the vehicle. It said it considers the driver was in an unfortunate predicament and felt there was no alternative.
36. It said the Operator provides transport for a large number of passengers under contract to the Council, and its monthly KPI indicators are within the range of its contractual requirements. It says it concluded that targeted monitoring of the Operator’s contract was not required as a result of Mr X’s complaints. It says that in the light of the concerns raised it will continue to liaise with the Operator and monitor the contract through its contract management process.
37. Regarding Mr X’s complaint in March 2020, the Council said it understood the Operator was making changes to the size of the vehicle to accommodate Mr X’s concerns. But this was just before the lockdown occurred due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

38. Mr X raised several issues of concern. In my view the Council took reasonable steps to investigate the incidents with the Operator apart from the last complaint. The LADO also considered the referral received but decided it did not meet the threshold for the Council to treat it as a child protection matter and take further safeguarding action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make after considering the evidence.
39. Regarding the ‘lock-in’ incident, the Council looked into it, established what had happened, and found that it was a one-off incident arising from a difficult decision taken in difficult circumstances. The Council and the Operator have offered an apology. Mr X has explained that this incident caused distress to his son.
40. When the Operator changed the drivers at the last minute without warning, these were unavoidable changes due to emergency circumstances. However the Operator recognised its communication was poor and has introduced a new texting arrangement to inform parents and carers. If Mr X had known about the change in advance he could have prepared his son. As he did not, Y suffered distress and anxiety.
41. The Operator and the Council have provided an explanation for drivers changing the order of the pick-ups. Mr X is not happy with the explanations as he says they are contradictory. However, whatever the reason, the Operator has confirmed it should not have happened and should not be happening again. Y will no longer be using this transport service and I do not consider further investigation into the reason for what happened is warranted. However Mr X says Y was confused and distressed and arrived at school late on these occasions.
42. On the day when Y had no transport, the driver was not following instructions and this is clearly a matter of fault. Mr X says he had to cancel a work commitment in order to take Y to school as Mrs X was away and Y would not have responded well to having someone else take him.
43. Mr X complained about relief drivers not having details of the next pick-up and being unfamiliar with the technology for finding the route. As far as I am aware the Council has not investigated this issue fully with the Operator.
44. Nor have I seen evidence that the Council investigated or responded to Mr X’s complaint of March 2020. The Council must be satisfied any transport it provides is suitable for the child. The size of the vehicle may affect whether transport is suitable.
45. It is inevitable that some changes to a transport service may occur in response to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, however, there were several incidents in a short space of time, some of which could have been avoided with better communication and training. As a child with autism, Y finds unexpected changes particularly difficult to cope with.

Agreed action

46. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and to Y, the Council has agreed to make the following payments within one month of the final decision on this complaint:
• £300 to recognise the anxiety, confusion, distress and disrupted education Y experienced
• £250 for Mr X to recognise the inconvenience, frustration and anxiety caused by the failings in the transport service and his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
47. The Council has also agreed within three months it will take the following steps:
• investigate Mr X’s last complaint if it has not already done so, and tell the Ombudsman the outcome. If it has investigated the complaint it should provide the evidence to the Ombudsman. It should ensure the complaint is recorded as part of its contract management process;
• confirm what arrangements it has in place for considering whether transport remains suitable for a child when the transport provider proposes long-term changes, such as the size of a vehicle used;
• discuss with the Operator how it will ensure all drivers, including cover drivers, are familiar with the technology for finding the route
48. The Council has now told transport operators to instruct drivers on how to deal with emergency situations arising during a journey. They should call in to their office to receive instructions. No passengers should be left unattended without authorisation.
49. I recommend that in six months’ time the Council should tell the Ombudsman the result of its monitoring of the Operator’s contract. It should say whether there is evidence of a repetition of the problems Mr X experienced and explain any action it plans to take.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have found fault causing injustice in the provision of transport for Y. I am satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman