Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint. There was a delay in (1) dealing with Mr X’s application for a personal transport budget, (2) actioning his request for changes to the school transport arrangements and (3) responding to the complaint. The Council will apologise, reimburse Mr X the money it has already agreed and pay him an additional £250 to reflect his avoidable frustration and time and trouble complaining.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Kent County Council (the Council):
• Did not act on his request to change the arrangements for the personal transport budgets for his children Ms Y and Mr Z.
• Mishandled his application in April 2021 and refused to respond to his complaint about this.
2. Mr X said this caused a financial loss, time and trouble and expenses driving Ms Y and Mr Z to and from college.

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 Mr X’s complaint to us and documents set out later in this statement. I discussed the complaint with him.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. A personal transport budget (PTB) is funding to help get a child to school or college. It allows a parent to make flexible arrangements rather than have their child travel to and from school by bus or taxi. Children who have an Education, Health and Care Plan may be eligible for a PTB. The Council calculates the yearly PTB according to the distance between home and school/college.
8. The Council’s published guidance on PTBs says:
• If a child attends part time, the Council pays a PTB proportionally. It makes 11 monthly payments directly into a bank account.
• The Council sends parents a yearly schedule setting out expected monthly payments based on 100% attendance.
• If a child is absent, the next month’s payment will be reduced.
• If there is a change of school or other change in circumstances, parents need to tell the Council no later than 28 days before the change.
• There is a review process for refused applications.
• If a PTB assessment is incorrect, payments can be backdated.
9. If there is more than one child, one of them gets 100% of the above and the other 50%. It is possible to switch this percentage so the child who attends the most days benefits from the most funding.

What happened

Background

10. Ms Y and Mr Z attend post-16 colleges and both have Education Health and Care Plans. The Council provides transport to college for them. Both had PTB’s for the school year 2020 to 2021.
11. Ms Y’s 2020 EHC plan says she gets 50% PTB for transport on a Monday and Tuesday. Her placement was College A
12. Mr Z’s 2021 EHC plan says he gets 100% PTB for transport on a Monday Tuesday Thursday and Friday.
13. Ms Y’s 2021 EHC plan said she gets a PTB at 50% for transport on a Monday and Tuesday. The plan named College B.

Key events

14. At the end of November 2020, Mr X emailed the Council’s transport team. He asked to switch the PTBs so Ms Y would get 100% and Mr Z 50%. The transport team responded saying this would be possible if he said which days each child attended college.
15. Mr X provided us with a screenshot of his email to the transport team on 3 December in which he said Mr Z attended college on a Monday and Ms Y on Monday and Tuesday. The Council confirmed it had received Mr X’s email but did not send it on to the PTB team for processing. So the Council did not make the changes Mr X had requested and continued to pay the PTB’s at 100% to Mr Z and 50% to Ms Y.
16. In April 2021, Mr X applied for PTBs for both children for the school year starting September 2021. The application for Ms Y said she would be attending College A from September 2021 on Mondays and Tuesdays. Mr Z’s application said he would be attending the same college as the previous year (which is very close to Ms Y’s College A) on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.
17. The annual review of Ms Y’s EHC Plan took place in May. Ms Y said she wanted to go to College B in September if she did not get the results she needed.
18. College B emailed the SEN team at the end of June saying Ms Y had applied for a place starting September 2021. The SEN team consulted with College B at the start of July and it responded positively. At the end of July, Mrs X emailed one of Ms Y’s teachers at College A, copying in the SEN team to say Ms Y needed her EHC Plan amending to name College B. However, Ms Y also emailed the SEN team at the end of July to say she would not be attending College B from September.
19. Mr X chased the Council for a response to his application for a PTB in the last week of August.
20. Mr X emailed the transport team in September asking for an update. He said the children were going to different colleges and he could not drive them both. He said he was going to make temporary arrangements so both could get to their respective colleges and he would be asking the Council for reimbursement.
21. Mr X complained to us in September. He also complained to the Council at the same time, saying he had applied for PTBs in April but had heard nothing. We decided not to proceed with an investigation because the Council had not provided a complaint response. The Council told us and Mr X that the complaint was going through its corporate complaints procedure and a response was due shortly. We told Mr X he could come back to us after 12 weeks if the Council had not resolved his complaint.
22. Mrs X emailed the Council in the middle of September to say she wanted to appeal the applications Mr X made for transport. She said the matter was urgent as the children were attending different colleges and Mr X could not take them both as the colleges were in different towns, so Mr Z would need a taxi.
23. The following day, Mr Z’s college emailed the transport team attaching his timetable and asking what was happening with the taxi. Mr Z’s social worker from the social care team also emailed the transport team about the same thing.
24. Mr X emailed the transport team and said he could not take Mr Z from 21 September, but he would keep taking Ms Y.
25. The Council issued Ms Y’s final amended EHC Plan on 22 September naming College B.
26. The annual review of Mr Z’s EHC Plan took place in the middle of October. The SEN team did not attend the meeting, but the college’s written record noted Mr Z’s parents could no longer transport him.
27. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of October saying the transport team could not proceed until the SEN team confirmed which college Ms Y was attending. The letter went on to say:
• Both children had been overpaid the previous school year and the overpayment was used to cover March, April and May 2021.
• Attendance information about Mr Z indicated due to low attendance in September, October and January, there would be no payment and there was still an outstanding amount of £347.
• The college delayed in providing attendance information regarding Mr Z so it took some time for officers to be made aware of his low attendance in May and June.
• Mr Z started the school year 2021/22 with an overpayment.
• It received the application for a PTB April 2021 – where a child continues to receive a PTB then the team sends a payment schedule, this was delayed due to COVID-19
• The PTB agreement makes it clear parents have to notify the transport team of a change in circumstances.
• It was not clear till the beginning of October he wanted a PTB for Ms Y and for Mr Z to transfer to a taxi.
• It would arrange a taxi for Mr Z and would write again regarding Ms Y SEN colleagues confirmed her college.
28. Mrs X emailed council officers at the end of October saying she had told SEN officers in June that Ms Y was going to a different college in September. She pointed out the Council had issued Ms Y’s EHC plan naming College B
29. The Council’s complaints’ team wrote to the family in October and November saying the complaint about transport was suspended because the transport team would try and resolve the issues.
30. The Council wrote to Mr X on 11 November attaching a breakdown of PTB payments since September 2020. The letter went on to say:
• Overpayments between September 2020 and February 2021 remained available for use and had been reduced by subsequent months usage. He would receive the remainder of November’s payments
• PTB payments between February and July 2021 were calculated using the wrong rate. It meant they were lower than should have been the case. This had no effect as Mr Y had significant absences meaning recoupments were needed each month and so the issue resolved itself.
• Mrs X had sent information from third parties, but the Council needed the request to come from Mr X.
• Parents needed to inform the transport team within a reasonable timeframe. The earliest parental request for a taxi was the start of October.
• It was having problem identifying a vehicle so Mr Y would continue to get a PTB meantime.
• There was no right of appeal because the Council was taking action to fulfil the parental request. This was just taking more time.
31. Mr Y’s college tutor emailed the Council in the middle of November to say he had not been attending due to transport issues.
32. The following week, the Council wrote to Mr X saying:
• There was a shortage of drivers
• The parental agreement required 28 days’ notice a PTB was no longer required. That had now expired. It was willing to refund him for the actual arrangements he had made
• The Council accepted 15 September as the date of notice – so from 13 October it should have provided alternative transport, so the Council would refund his costs since 13 October.
33. Mr X complained to us again in November as the issues were unresolved. We decided the Council had already had enough time to resolve the issues and that we would investigate.
34. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of November saying it had found a taxi to take Mr Z.
35. At the start of December, the Council wrote to Mr X about Ms Y’s transport. It said:
• Both children had been overpaid as a result of reduced attendance the previous school year
• Ms Y was entitled to a PTB at 100% following her change of placement.
36. Also at the start of December, Mrs X emailed the Council asking it to reimburse Mr X 11 journeys at £50 and an extra 7 journeys at £75. Mrs X went on to say that Mr Z’s transport was now in place and said she wanted the LGSCO to investigate her complaint.
37. The Council’s complaints team wrote to Mrs X in response to her email saying a referral to the us was not appropriate because the transport team was still resolving her concerns and would be in touch with her.
38. At the start of January 2022, College A emailed the Council saying it got Ms Y’s attendance figures wrong for the school year 2020/21. The updated figures indicate she attended five fewer days than the previous figures)
39. The Council wrote to Mr X on 10 January. I have summarised the letter below:
• Its policy was to reimburse travel costs at 45 pence a mile. Or if parents had used a taxi, it would reimburse the cost of this if they provided a receipt
• It agreed to pay a relative’s mileage for taking Ms Y to and from college, he needed to provide her address
• Regarding Ms Y’s PTB calculations, it needed to confirm her attendance as he had said College B’s information was wrong. College A said she attended five days in May 2021
• It had already told him in a letter in November 2021 that there had been overpayments because both children were paid for full-time attendance between March and July 2021; this was the Council’s error and had been accounted for
• Ms Y’s application for a PTB in April 2021 said College A. Her entitlement remained after she moved to College B and the calculations included her attendance from September 2021
• It was not appropriate for the Ombudsman to become involved yet because the Council was still resolving the issues.
40. Two days later, the Council wrote again to Mr X. The letter said:
• It had received the relative’s address and would refund £57 a day for the days attended between 18 October and 27 November while it sourced a taxi
• It attached PTB calculations for Mr Z to 17 October and there was an overpayment to be taken from the refund.
41. Mr X emailed us in January 2022 saying he had not been reimbursed for paying his sister to transport Ms Y between September and November 2021.
42. On 2 February, the transport team wrote to Mr X saying:
• Ms Y’s days remained the same, but the monthly PTB payments would be different due to some months having bank holidays
• It agreed a refund of £57 a day for the 13 days Mr Z attended between 13 October and 27 November 2021
• It will deduct £336.70 from this to recover an overpayment and so he will get £405 which it would pay into the same PTB bank account.
43. On 15 February, the transport team wrote to Mr X about his request for Ms Y to get 100% of the PTB and Mr Z to get 50% (see paragraph 14). The letter said he still needed to say which days each child attended college as previously requested in November 2020 and as he had not done this, the arrangements continued to be Mr Z receiving 100% and Ms Y receiving 50%
44. The Council wrote to Mr X in the middle of March apologising for not actioning his email of 3 December 2020 (see paragraph 15.) It said it had recalculated the children’s personal budget payments and if it applied the requested change, he would be worse off. It offered a refund of £405 again.
45. Mr X emailed the transport team in March 2022 saying he did not accept the Council’s assertion that it required 28 days’ notice of changes to a PTB in line with the parental agreement because there was no PTB in place for 2021. He considers he is owed more than the £405 the Council has agreed to pay.
46. Mr X’s view is he should be refunded £1027 or for 21 trips – as the sister took one of the children from 20 September.

Comments from the Council

47. The Council told me:
• The Council acknowledged in its letter to Mr X in October 2021 that it did not respond to his application for the PTB’s in April 2021 and apologised.
• Mr X’s email in December 2020 with the children’s college days was not sent to the PTB department to action. I
• If it changed over the children’s PTBs in line with Mr X’s request, it would actually result in the family being worse off than the original arrangements by £197.40. So it would use the original arrangement so they would not be worse off.
• A student is only entitled to transport if they are attending the nearest appropriate school/college. As Ms Y’s change of placement was not completed with the SEN team then the Council needed to determine if College B was the nearest suitable provider before deciding on transport. Ms Y told the SEN team at the end of July that she had changed her mind about College B and so there was every expectation she would be returning to College A.
• PTBs are paid at the start of each month and calculated based on 100% attendance for college days in that month. If a child does not attend, deductions are made to future payments.
• Schools had less capacity to provide the Council with attendance information during COVID-19 so there were delays in working out recoupment.
• There was also an error in Ms Y and Mr Z’s cases as they were paid for an incorrect number of days at the wrong band between February and July 2021. Mr X was advised of this and received a breakdown of how this affected PTB payments
• Ms Y’s college provided incorrect attendance information. The transport team asked it to provide correct information. Payments were recalculated when the transport team received the correct information
• The SEN team was not aware Ms Y had moved to College B until the transport team said. Following this, the Council issued an amended EHC plan on 22 September naming College B
• No back payments were due as shown in its calculations in March. A refund of £405.08 is due to Mr X for costs while waiting for Mr Z’s taxi arrangements.

Was there fault?

The Council did not act on Mr X’s request to change the arrangements for the personal transport budgets.

48. There is fault by the Council. Mr X provided the transport team with the dates each child attended college in an email in December 2020. The transport team did not act on that email and did not make the requested changes. This was poor customer service and was fault.

The Council mishandled his application for school transport for his two children Ms Y and Mr Z, refused to respond to his complaint about this

49. The Council failed to assess and decide on Mr X’s April 2021 application for PTBs in a timely manner and this was fault. Had the Council actioned the requests within a reasonable timeframe, Mr X would have had certainty about the children’s entitlements before they resumed college in September 2021.
50. Having considered all the information, my view is Ms Y was ambivalent over the summer about where she was going to attend college in September, because at the end of July she emailed the SEN team saying she wasn’t going to College B. So I don’t see it was clear to the Council that any changes needed to be made to the transport arrangements during the summer period. However, by the middle of September 2021, Mr X had emailed the transport team saying the children were going to different colleges and the SEN team had issued an amended EHC Plan for Ms Y on the 22nd. So the Council should have taken steps to action the request for a taxi for Mr Z as it was clear that Mr X was not going to be able to drive both children to colleges in different towns. I consider the Council’s correspondence at the end of October (see paragraph 27) was faulty because it said the transport team could not proceed until the SEN team confirmed which college Miss Y was attending. However, the SEN team had issued Ms Y’s final EHC plan naming College B in the last week of September and so that department had agreed the change of placement. The transport team could easily have checked with this with the SEN team. We expect departments to liaise with one another where their respective roles overlap and in this case liaison did not happen which was fault.
51. There was also a delay in finding a taxi to take Mr Z because of driver shortages. I accept this was not within the Council’s control and I do not regard this to be fault.

Complaint handling

52. I consider there was a delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint. I note the Council was trying to resolve the issues directly, however, my initial view is that it should have provided a formal complaint response by the end of November/start of December which we expected it to do, having told Mr X in September that his complaint to us was premature. That said, I note the Council responded to the issues Mr X raised in his complaint through correspondence between January and March 2022.

Did the fault cause injustice requiring a remedy?

53. The failure to action Mr X’s request in December 2020 to swap the personal budgets round caused him avoidable frustration and time and trouble, but no financial loss because of variations in the children’s attendance meaning the original split was more beneficial than the requested change.
54. The delay in determining the application for PTBs for the children in April 2021 caused Mr X avoidable inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble complaining. Had the Council dealt with the application within a reasonable timeframe, Mr X would have had a decision on the application and been assured the PTBs were in place for both children before the start of the school term in September 2021. I note the original application was for PTBs for both and not for a PTB for Ms Y and a taxi for Mr Z. This was because Ms Y was expected to stay at College A and so Mr X would have been able to manage both children’s transport.
55. Mr X had to make alternative arrangements while the Council identified a taxi for Mr Z. The Council Mr X reimbursement for the travel arrangements he had made while it sourced a taxi. This was appropriate.
56. The Council’s delay in responding to the complaint caused Mr X avoidable frustration and time and trouble chasing the matter up.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. The Council will, within one month of this statement, apologise to Mr X and
• Reimburse Mr X the £405 it has already offered and
• Make him an additional payment of £250 to reflect his avoidable inconvenience and time and trouble complaining.
58. I note Mr X considers he should be reimbursed more than the Council says, however, the Council has calculated the refund based on the PTB agreement which says a parent should give 28 days’ notice of any change in circumstances. It was entitled to do this because this is its policy. So there are no grounds for me to recommend a payment to cover his costs before the effective date of notice in the middle of October.

Back to top

Final decision

59. There was a delay in dealing with Mr X’s application for a personal transport budget, delay in actioning his request for changes to the school transport arrangements and a delay in responding to the complaint. The Council will apologise, reimburse Mr X the money it has already agreed and pay him an additional £250 to reflect his avoidable frustration and time and trouble.
60. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman