Summary: Mrs A complains the Council refused to backdate school transport payments despite her appeal being upheld. Mrs A says this has caused her son to miss out on transport payments he should have received. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not backdating school transport costs for Child X. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying its initial decision to deny an extension to the payments. This has caused Mrs A to incur costs and has caused Mrs A significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and backdate the transport payments.

The complaint

1. Mrs A complains the Council has refused to backdate payments for transport support for her son to attend school, despite her appeal being upheld.
2. Mrs A complains this has left her in financial hardship and caused her and her son significant distress.

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 considered Mrs A’s complaint and information she provided. I also considered responses from the Council. I considered comments from Mrs A and the Council on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In 2016, Mrs A, her husband and Child X moved herself and Child X to a different house due to a reduced household income after her husband became ill. The new home was in a different town to the previous home. In 2018, Mrs X’s husband died due to his ill health.
7. Child X remained at the primary school he had been attending before his father’s death. The school was further away than it had been previously.
8. Mrs A asked the Council for discretionary help with school transport costs so she could still get Child X to school.
9. In September 2018, the Council agreed to give Mrs A discretionary payments for mileage to help Child X attend school.
10. The Council gave this payment on the basis that Mrs A would look for a property closer to Child X’s school, seek alternative employment or move Child X to a school closer to the new home.
11. In February 2019, before the discretionary payment ended, Mrs A asked the Council to grant an extension. This was because Child X was undergoing grief and emotional wellbeing support at his primary school due to the death of his father. Health professionals and school staff wrote on behalf of Child X to express their concern about him moving schools.
12. Mrs A also advised the Council she could not afford to move to properties closer to the primary school and had not managed to obtain alternative employment.
13. In July 2019, the Council decided that Mrs A had had enough time to change her circumstances, and the payments ended.
14. In August 2019, Mrs A again requested an extension to the payments for the next school term. The Council told Mrs A the request had been passed to a manager.
15. In October 2019 Mrs A followed up with the Council to ask about her request for an extension. She did not receive a response. She followed up in December 2019, and the Council asked her for more information about her sons’ circumstances.
16. Mrs A followed up with the Council again in January 2020. The Council told Mrs A it was waiting on information from Child X’s school. In February 2020, the Council declined Mrs A’s request.
17. In March 2020, Mrs A asked the Council how to appeal the decision. The Council provide her with the details, but she did not appeal then.
18. In September 2020, Mrs A wrote to the Council and again asked for help with transport. The Council asked her to provide further information and Mrs A submitted documents supporting Child X’s circumstances. Mrs A did not get a response from the Council.
19. Mrs A followed up with the Council in October 2020 and was told her appeal would be heard in December 2020.
20. In December 2020, Mrs A’s appeal was heard, and was upheld by the panel who said the Council did not give enough consideration to the circumstances of Child X and why he needed to attend the school.
21. The Panel found the Council should continue the discretionary transport payments until Child X finishes year 6.
22. The Council reinstated the discretionary payment, however it did not backdate the payments for the period where the payment had ended.
23. Mrs A complained the Council that it should backdate the payment as her son should have been receiving it. The Council refused to backdate the payment and Mrs A complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

24. The appeal panel has already considered Mrs A’s reasons for appeal. The appeal panel found the Council should be providing the discretionary payment.
25. As part of my investigation, I considered communication between Mrs A and the Council about the payments and the appeals process.
26. The payments ended in July 2019. Between February 2019 and March 2020, Mrs A contacted the Council several times about the request for an extension, however, did not always receive a response.
27. The Council has been unable to explain why responses to Mrs A were significantly delayed. The Council has said it spoke to Mrs A on the phone, but cannot provide record of this.
28. It is my view the Council significantly delayed making a decision on whether to extend Child X’s transport costs. Mrs A request the extension in February 2019 and the decision was not made until February 2020, with no clear rationale as to why, and ongoing poor communication with Mrs A. This was fault by the Council causing Mrs A injustice.
29. However, although the decision to continue the transport payments was initially delayed, Mrs A did not pursue the opportunity to appeal.
30. Mrs A made a further request for support in September 2020. The Council again declined the request. Mrs A then asked to appeal the decision and she was told the appeal would be heard in December 2020.
31. The appeal set out the Council should be paying transport costs. Mrs A funded the transport in the time where the payments were cut.
32. The Council’s reasoning for not backdating the payments is that normally it will only provide transport costs from the date of the appeal. I have also reviewed communication between Mrs A and the Council after the appeal and am of the view the Council delayed carrying out the payments. This meant Mrs A had to spend further time and energy chasing payments her son was entitled to.
33. The appeal panel decided the Council had not properly considered Child X’s circumstances and need for transport. If the Council had properly considered the exceptional circumstances of Child X, then he would have been receiving transport payments from September 2020.
34. Therefore, I am of the view the Council should backdate the school transport payments from September 2020. This is because it did not properly consider Child X’s circumstances. I am of the view that the Council should not backdate the payments between July 2019 and July 2020 as Mrs A had the opportunity to appeal this sooner.
35. However, I am of the view the Council should remedy the significant delay in making the decision in March 2020. This caused to Mrs A at a time when she and Child X were grieving.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should write to Mrs A and apologise for delaying the first decision, and for not backdating the payments.
37. The Council should also pay £765 to Mrs A. This is the sum of backdated payments from 7th September 2020 to 1st December 2020.
38. The Council should also pay Mrs A £150 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s delay in making the first decision in February 2020.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for not backdating school transport costs. I also find fault with the Council for the delay caused in reaching the initial decision to not extend the transport payments.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman