Summary: Mrs M complains about the Council's handling of her application for transport for her son B's post-16 education. I uphold Mrs M’s complaints about the lack of information on the Council’s website and in its policies about payments instead of transport, and delay by the Council making decisions. The Council’s undertaking to improve its website and policies, and its apology for the delay, are a suitable remedy. I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint about the mileage rate used by the Council or its decision not to pay for her time. There is no fault in these decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains about the Council's handling of her application for transport for her son B's post-16 education. In particular, Mrs M complains:
1. there was insufficient information for parents on the Council's website about payments instead of transport, and the Council's policy is unclear;
2. the Council agreed to provide transport, but Mrs M had to chase the Council for a decision on her request for payment instead of transport;
3. by the time the Council made a decision on Mrs M's request for payment instead of transport, B had established a routine using the Council transport. In any event, Mrs M does not consider the payment offered reflects the cost of transport.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

3. I have considered information provided by Mrs M and information provided by the Council. I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs M’s son, B, has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan maintained by the Council. He started his post-16 education in September 2022.

What happened

5. On 1 June 2022, the Council emailed Mrs M to say it would provide transport.
6. Mrs M emailed the Council on 6 June 2022 to ask for a copy of the Council’s policy on ‘personal travel budgets’.
7. The Council responded the same day. The Council explained that it offered ‘parental agreements’ which in most cases were higher than ‘personal travel budgets’. The Council provided a brief explanation of ‘parental agreements’. The Council invited Mrs M to provide her address and offered to calculate the payments she could receive.
8. Mrs M asked again for a copy of the Council’s policy for ‘personal travel budgets’.
9. The Council sent a copy of the school transport policy and an application form for a ‘personal travel budget’.
10. Mrs M replied with her address and the school B would attend. She asked whether the mileage rate the Council paid was specified in a policy, and whether there was already transport to the school which B could use.
11. Not having received a reply, Mrs M emailed the Council again on 23 and 29 June to ask whether she could apply for a ‘personal travel budget’.
12. The Council replied on 30 June. The Council explained that ‘personal travel budgets’ were now called ‘parental agreements’ and were only offered in certain circumstances, such as when there was no existing transport, or when a pupil’s needs meant they could not use existing transport. The Council invited Mrs M to apply if she thought this applied to B.
13. Mrs M emailed the Council on 27 July 2022 to apply for a ‘personal travel budget’. She explained why the flexibility it would offer was important. She asked again for a copy of the Council’s policy on ‘personal travel budgets’.
14. Not having received a reply, Mrs M emailed the Council again on 14 August.
15. Still not having received a reply, or any information about the arrangements for B’s transport, Mrs M telephoned the Council on 31 August. The Council confirmed it would provide transport by taxi.
16. Mrs M submitted her complaint the same day.
17. On 9 September 2022, the Council offered Mrs M a ‘parental agreement’: a payment based on four journeys per day between her home and B’s school, paid at 45p per mile, the rate used by HMRC.
18. Mrs M replied on 12 September 2022 to query the distance the Council had used, and to request an additional £9.50 per day for her time providing transport.
19. The Council replied on 13 September 2022 to explain it uses software to measure the distance, and it does not pay for parents’ time. The Council said this could cause tax problems.
20. Mrs M replied the same day to say she believed the Council’s tax concerns were unfounded. She also said other councils paid considerably more than Suffolk.
21. The Council responded to Mrs M’s complaint at the first stage of its complaints process on 23 September 2022.
22. The Council acknowledged the eligibility criteria for ‘parental agreements’ and ‘personal travel budgets’ were not clearly stated. The Council explained that it was in the process of phasing out ‘personal travel budgets’. The Council noted it had offered Mrs M a ‘parental agreement’ and was discussing the details.
23. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs M asked the Council to respond at the second stage of the complaints process.
24. The Council responded by letter on 31 October 2022. The Council said it was working on improvements to the information on its website. The Council apologised for the delay confirming B’s travel arrangements and considering Mrs M’s request for a ‘personal travel budget’. The Council explained parents could appeal if they were unhappy with the transport offered.
25. Unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint, Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

The Council’s policies

26. The Council has separate policies for children of compulsory school age and young people in post-16 education.
27. Only the Council’s policy on transport for children of compulsory school age refers to ‘personal travel budgets’. This is the policy the Council sent when Mrs M first enquired about ‘personal travel budgets’. It describes a personal budget as “a sum of money paid to parents or carers of children and young people with an education, health and care (EHC) plan who qualify for transport.” It says the Council may offer a personal budget as an alternative to providing a taxi or minibus where it would be more cost effective for the Council. The policy also refers to ‘parental agreements’. It says, “Parents or carers who have an agreed arrangement with SCC to provide transport themselves will be reimbursed travel expenses, at SCC parental transport rate.”
28. This policy does not apply to B. The Council did not ask, and Mrs M did not say, that her enquiry concerned post-16 transport.
29. The Council’s post-16 transport policy does not refer to ‘personal travel budgets’ or ‘parental agreements’. It simply says transport for eligible pupils will be ‘provided’ or ‘funded’.
30. The Council explained in its correspondence with Mrs M that it has combined the administration of ‘personal travel budgets’ and ‘parental agreements’ to ensure greater consistency. This is a positive step.
31. If I have understood correctly, the Council will continue to make payments for parents to use their own cars, and to arrange transport by other means such as buses and taxis. The payments will be known by one name, ‘parental agreements’. Each application will be considered on its merits.
32. The Council has updated the information about school transport on its website since Mrs M made her complaint. The information is clearer, but there is still room for improvement.
33. The changes the Council described in its correspondence with Mrs M clearly still need to be incorporated in the Council’s policies and on the Council’s website. In its response to Mrs M’s complaint, the Council recognised the problems and said it was working on improvements. The Council will have an opportunity to provide clearer explanations of the support available, and the eligibility criteria, when it reviews its transport policies.
34. I am satisfied the Council has recognised the problems and proposed a satisfactory response. I do not intend to pursue the matter further.
35. The outstanding issues in Mrs M’s complaint are the delays by the Council considering her request, and her disagreement with the payment the Council offered. I will consider these matters next.

Delays

36. Mrs M applied for a ‘personal travel budget’ on 27 July 2022. If the information on the Council’s website and in its policies had been clearer, it is likely she would have applied sooner.
37. The Council offered Mrs M a ‘parental agreement’ on 9 September 2022, shortly after the start of term.
38. Further, the Council did not tell Mrs M the arrangements it proposed to make for B’s transport until she telephoned on 31 August 2022. This left very little time for Mrs M to prepare B for the new transport.
39. The Council accepted it was responsible for these delays and apologised to Mrs M. I uphold Mrs M’s complaint, but I consider the Council’s apology a satisfactory remedy.

The Council’s offer of a ‘parental agreement’

40. The Council agreed to provide transport for B. Mrs M asked for payment instead of transport. She wanted the flexibility of using her own car so that B would not have to be at school when he did not have lessons. She explained why B’s special educational needs meant this was important.
41. The Council accepted Mrs M’s request and offered a payment based on four journeys per day at 45p per mile.
42. Mrs M does not consider this to be enough. She says other councils pay considerably more. She believes the Council is wrong to use the HMRC mileage rate of 45p per mile and wants the Council to pay for her time providing transport. The Council declined.
43. The Ombudsman does not decide how much the Council should pay. Our job is to check the Council has followed the relevant legislation and guidance. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault.
44. The relevant legislation is the Education Act 1996. Section 509AA(3) requires the Council to publish a transport policy statement every year. The statement must “specify the arrangements that the authority consider it necessary to make for the provision of financial assistance in respect of the reasonable travelling expenses of persons of sixth form age receiving education or training at any establishment” specified in the Act.
45. Section 509AB requires the Council to include arrangements for disabled learners which are at least as favourable as those for non-disabled learners.
46. The legislation and guidance do not say how much the Council should pay. The Council has considerable discretion to decide when and how much financial support to offer.
47. I note that pupils of sixth form age, including disabled pupils, must pay a contribution towards the cost of their transport. The Council does not meet the entire cost. It makes a substantial contribution.
48. The Council bases its contribution on the ‘HMRC rate’ of 45p per mile. This is the amount employers can pay their employees to use their own cars at work without paying income tax. It covers the cost of fuel and the other costs of running a car.
49. Mrs M thinks the HMRC rate is irrelevant since she is not an employee.
50. While it is true Mrs M is not a council employee, it does not mean the Council is wrong to use the HMRC rate in its calculations. The HMRC rate represents the cost of running a car. As such, it is a logical rate for the Council to use in its own calculations. There is no fault in the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.
51. Mrs M complains the Council declined her request to pay an additional £9.50 per day for her time providing B’s transport.
52. It is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide what it considers necessary to pay. I note the Council is willing to provide transport by taxi, so if Mrs M does not consider the payment offered by the Council is enough, she is not obliged to accept the ‘parental agreement’ and the Council will make alternative arrangements. Further, the Council explained that parents can appeal transport decisions. This is an opportunity for parents to present their case and ask the Council to exercise its discretion.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Mrs M’s complaint about the lack of information on the Council’s website and in its policies about payments instead of transport, and delay by the Council making decisions. The Council’s undertaking to improve its website and policies, and its apology for the delay, are a suitable remedy. I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint about the mileage rate used by the Council or its decision not to pay for her time. There is no fault in these decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman