Summary: the Council planned practical support to build G’s confidence and ensure her journey to a new school was safe and manageable for her. However, G went to a different school and the Council paid for taxis instead. The Council appears to have stopped paying for taxis without carrying out a review. Ms M wants the Council to provide long-term school transport, but the Council has not considered her request. The Council has agreed to carry out the review and consider Ms M’s request.

The complaint

1. Ms M believes the Council should provide taxis to take her granddaughter, G, to school. She said G has been subject to racial and physical abuse in the community since 2017 and she believes school transport is needed to keep her safe.

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:
• information provided by Ms M;
• information provided by the Council.
5. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision. My final decision takes account of their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. G’s mother withdrew her from primary school in 2019 following an incident of racial abuse. She was unhappy with the school’s response.
7. G should have started secondary school in September 2019.
8. In February 2020, G’s mother made a late application for a secondary school place for G. Her application was successful. However, G’s mother declined the offer when she discovered children who had bullied G at primary school went to the school. G remained out of school.
9. The Council’s Education Welfare and Children Missing Education teams were involved. They identified four secondary schools with places available that none of the children alleged to have bullied G at primary school attended. G’s mother did not want her to attend any of the schools.
10. The Council was concerned G was not receiving suitable education and issued a School Attendance Order. The Order required G’s mother to enrol her at a named local secondary school.
11. Before issuing the School Attendance Order, the Council prepared a reintegration plan. The plan proposed support for G because of the length of time she had been out of school. This included support from a ‘buddy’, a trusted adult mentor, and access to the school counsellor.
12. The plan said the Council would provide “phased support around transport to school to build G’s confidence and ensure the journey is safe and manageable for her.” Internal emails from the Early Help Hub suggest a Council officer would accompany G on a number of journeys to school (presumably on foot or by bus). The plan said the support would be reviewed at the end of the first two weeks.
13. The Council explained it offered support with transport because Ms M believed the school was in a dangerous neighbourhood and she was concerned about knife crime at the school. The Council did not share Ms M’s concerns.
14. G’s mother refused to comply with the Order. She asked for places at other schools instead. The schools G’s mother wanted were already full.
15. One of the schools agreed to admit G even though it was full. The school is 1.3 miles from G’s home. The Council paid for taxis for the first two weeks to help G settle at the school. The Council explained it did this as a gesture of goodwill. The Council said Ms M raised no concerns about G’s attendance and it did not produce a new reintegration plan for this school. G has attended the school since February 2021.
16. Ms M complained to the Council in March 2021 when the Council stopped paying for G’s taxis. Ms M contacted a number of senior officers. She used the “Resolver” online complaint tool to try to secure the transport she believes G needs. Her complaint – one of a number of complaints and appeals she has made in her attempts to obtain support for G – was broad in scope.
17. The Council’s response is very brief. It suggests the transport stopped because Ms M was unwilling to work with the Council. The Council did not explain what it meant, but I understand Ms M did not want the ‘travel training’ offered by the Early Help Hub. She wanted the Council to provide taxis instead.
18. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms M complained to the Ombudsman. Ms M believes the Council should continue to provide taxis to keep G safe.

Consideration

19. The Council offered “phased support” with transport to help G’s reintegration to a specific school. The reintegration plan said the support would be reviewed after two weeks. G did not attend the school for which the plan was drawn up and the Council says it did not draw up a specific reintegration plan for the school she now attends. The Council paid for taxis to her new school for two weeks.
20. The fact the Council paid for taxis does not commit the Council to continuing to provide school transport. However, the intention of the original reintegration plan was to review the arrangements for G’s transport after two weeks, and this would have been advisable when the Council stopped providing taxis.
21. Ms M complained as soon as the transport ended. While the wide range of issues Ms M raised in her complaint may have made it harder for the Council to spot, Ms M was also asking the Council to provide ongoing, long-term school transport for G. She believes this is the only way to keep G safe. While this may be an unusual request, the Council should have considered it in line with its school transport policy. The Council should have considered Ms M’s request and issued a decision, with reasons, which she could then have challenged using the Council’s appeals procedure.
22. Instead, Ms M and the Council reached a stalemate and Ms M complained to the Ombudsman.
23. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide taxis to take G to school. This is the Council’s job.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. To move matters forward, I recommended the Council carries out the review of the transport support proposed in G’s original reintegration plan. The Council should also consider Ms M’s request for ongoing school transport. The Council should follow its school transport policy and the government’s school transport guidance. The Council may wish to invite Ms M to provide up-to-date evidence with her request.
25. The Council accepted my recommendations. I recommend the Council completes these actions within one month of my final decision.
26. Ms M wants the Council to refund the money she has spent on taxis for G and to pay compensation for the distress G has suffered. It is too soon to consider Ms M’s request because the Council has not yet decided whether G is eligible for transport.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council planned practical support to build G’s confidence and ensure her journey to a new school was safe and manageable for her. However, G went to a different school and the Council paid for taxis instead. The Council appears to have stopped paying for taxis without carrying out a review. Ms M wants the Council to provide long-term school transport, but the Council has not considered her request. The Council has agreed to carry out the review and consider Ms M’s request. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman