Summary: We found fault on Mrs S’s complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend her son’s special educational needs transport with immediate effect and no warning. It failed to show staff recorded concerns, show these were passed to managers, alerted Mrs S to them, provided a record of a meeting, follow up and review control measures previously discussed, and respond to her initial complaint. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs S complains about the Council suspending her son’s special educational needs transport in April 2023 with immediate effect and without warning: as a result, this caused her and her family a great deal of upset, stress, and disruption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Mrs S provided, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs S and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy: Change in service user’s needs

6. In response to a change in a service user’s needs the Council will:

• convene a case conference as soon as possible after the issue is identified. This is attended by the risk assessor, contract manager, and other officers to consider the circumstances of the case including the child’s needs, height of risk, parental expectation, available resources, and family circumstances.
• decide, if current transport cannot continue, if there is a quick fix (for example, a change of escort) and stopping transport while a new risk assessment and allocation of new transport is done. A new risk assessment and allocation of transport is done within 10 working days. The parents are told of the outcome.

What happened

7. Mrs S’s son, T, was eligible for transport assistance under the Council’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) Home to School Transport policy. He attended an area special school. A risk assessment confirmed he needed an escort on a bus to meet his medical needs to support him with communication and interaction. The escort needed to be trained to monitor signs of a seizure, administer rescue medication, and provide care afterwards.
8. T travelled on a Council Transport Fleet bus (Fleet) since the start of the academic year. It was a shared transport arrangement with other children. Before that, he travelled well with the help of an escort.
9. In January 2023, an email from a Risk Assessor noted the escort had called to report T having frequent seizures on the bus on almost every journey. The concern was of injury to T and the impact on the other 7 children. His behaviour was becoming more challenging. The escort said she was unable to talk to Mrs S that day in any depth about it.
10. The possibility of a second escort on the bus was raised. A manager agreed to check whether this was a possibility. The escort said T’s medication was being changed by the doctor which might be affecting him. The Risk Assessor would discuss the situation with Mrs S.
11. The Risk Assessor confirmed speaking to Mrs S who explained T’s new medication, which started over Christmas, had now stopped. The new medication had made T worse and increased his seizure activity. T’s risk assessment was updated to include use of a harness while on the bus but, Mrs S noted this was never used. If the issues did not settle, the email said T may need to a 1:1 arrangement.
12. In April, an email from the Transport Manager to Fleet staff and the Risk Assessor noted the bus driver and escort saying T’s seizures were happening daily. In addition, they had concerns about his challenging behaviour. The escort said when she alerted Mrs S to his behaviour that afternoon, she just laughed it off. Mrs S denied this. In addition, the escort said the driver was starting to find T’s behaviour distracting because of where he had to sit. The time had come to look at a 1:1 arrangement.
13. The Council suspended T’s transport with immediate effect because he was having more frequent seizures on the bus. Staff struggled to deal with his behaviour and the impact this had on other children on the bus as well as T himself. The Council decided the arrangement had become unsuitable both in terms of T’s needs and those who were sharing the bus, including staff. It accepted it gave her no warning his behaviour was causing Fleet staff to struggle meeting his needs. Usually, concerns are reported to the office so these can be discussed with the parent and/or Risk Assessor.
14. The records show when officers contacted Mrs S about the suspension, she was surprised as nothing had been raised by Fleet staff. The Transport Manager said Mrs S was told about T’s medication and seizures on a daily basis by the escort.
15. The Council confirmed there was a case conference scheduled a few days after this decision but there were no notes of the meeting.
16. The same month, Mrs S complained about the Council cancelling T’s transport with immediate effect. She was unhappy that despite the Fleet raising concerns with their manager from January, nothing was said to her or T’s school. While the Council said Transport staff gave feedback to Mrs S during daily handovers about concerns, it has no record showing this happened. She received no acknowledgement or response from the Council to her complaint.
17. Mrs S denied getting daily feedback. She said an escort saying T was not in a great mood at handovers was not communicating problems the Council said staff were experiencing. If concerns were raised with management by staff, she asked why management had not contacted her to discuss them.
18. In June, she again complained to the Council having heard nothing. The Council accepted the April letter was not passed to the complaints team for action. Under the complaints procedure, complaints are acknowledged within three working days and a full response is sent within an agreed timescale. It usually tries to reply within 10 working days, but this can be extended.
19. In July, the Council responded to her complaint. It accepted:

• it gave her no warning about T’s behaviour causing Fleet staff to struggle;
• concerns are usually reported to the office so these can be discussed with parents or reviewed by a Risk Assessor, or both;
• drivers and escort were raising concerns which led to the review at the end of January 2023;
• there was a failure in February to ensure appropriate steps were then taken. There was no follow up after the January review to open discussions with her and the school to look at further possible measures. The was a failure to review, and follow up, on control measures discussed;
• the driver and escort continued to record concerns which were raised with their manager. These in turn were referred to the Contract Manager and risk assessment colleagues. No evidence of this was provided for February to April;
• it was not appropriate to use the harness on the bus as T did not need restraining to be kept in his seat;
• there was poor communication between the teams. It started reviewing the transport teams which would likely lead to structural and system changes. It also introduced ‘link’ meetings to improve communications. The Transport Service was introducing new software which would eventually help to improve communications and efficiency in its processes. It would review all processes;
• there was a risk assessment at the end of January following concerns raised. This is when the use of a harness ‘as needed’ was raised. This was a control measure that was never used and was not needed as it used as a last resort for those who do not stay seated during the journey. The Council said Mrs S asked for a harness as she felt it would stop him thrashing around and causing an injury during a seizure. This was not a reason the Council would agree for introducing use of the harness; and
• there was poor communication between teams about daily transport concerns which is being reviewed.

20. The Council apologised to Mrs S for the breakdown in communication leading up to the suspension of transport. Given the frequency of seizures and T’s behaviours, it believed it likely the service would have been suspended anyway. It accepted it missed the chance to properly manage the situation.
21. Although the Council offered a taxi provider instead, Mrs S was concerned the driver would have no experience of dealing with someone with T’s health issues, especially if experienced Fleet staff and the escort could not cope. She was unhappy there was no transition to alternative transport.
22. Mrs S decided to take a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) and take T to school herself. The PTB is a sum of money paid to a parent of children who have special educational needs and disabilities who have an Education, Health and Care Plan who qualify for help with transport.
23. The Council was willing to make a new transport arrangement should Mrs S ask which would need a new risk assessment to identify current needs and requirements.
24. Mrs S considers the Council unfairly discriminated against T and failed to follow procedures or policy. She believes the Council should not be able to just cancel school transport because a child’s condition has become more difficult.
25. In response to my draft decision, the Council accepted it missed the chance to take reasonable steps before suspending transport. It noted there will be occasions when it will have to suspend transport immediately due to sudden changes in needs or behaviour.

My findings

26. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The records show in January, a 1:1 arrangement was raised as a possibility but there is no evidence to show this was considered further particularly during January to April when the Council said staff were experiencing problems.
2. The possibility of a 1:1 arrangement was again raised in April. There is no evidence showing this was considered further.
3. There is no written record of the case conference. There is nothing to show what was considered, what it decided, or why.
4. Mrs S was given no warning of the decision to suspend T’s transport.
5. Nor was she given any information, feedback, or details of concerns apparently raised between January and April by staff.
6. There is no evidence of staff recording concerns about T and passing them to a manager.
7. There is no evidence of staff raising concerns about T with the school during this period.
8. There is no evidence of staff giving her feedback following journeys as claimed.
9. It failed to review and follow up on control measures discussed in January.
10. The Council failed to respond to her formal complaint sent in April. It failed to acknowledge it, deal with it within its usual ten working day deadline, or keep her informed about what was happening with it.
11. The Council accepted there was poor communication internally between different teams.
27. I am satisfied the identified fault caused Mrs S an injustice. This caused distress as she had the uncertainty of not knowing whether the outcome would have been different but for the fault happening. She was caused stress, frustration, and lost the opportunity to explore the problem with the Council during January to April as it apparently developed.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. I considered our guidance on remedies.
29. I took account of what the Council said it was doing to improve its services to ensure problems Mrs S experienced are not repeated in the future. These include: reviewing the transport teams which was likely to lead to structural and system changes; the introduction of ‘link’ meetings to improve communications; the introduction of new computer software in the Transport Service which would help improve communication and efficiencies in its processes.
30. The Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mrs S a written apology for failing to: consider 1:1 arrangements after January and in April; make and retain a written record of the case conference meeting and its decision; give Mrs S any feedback or details of concerns it claimed staff had between January and April; give Mrs S any warning of its decision to suspend his transport; show staff had recorded their concerns and passed these on to their manager; show staff had also raised concerns with the school; review and follow up on control measures discussed in January; have good communication between teams; deal with her initial complaint according to its complaints procedure.
2. Make a payment of £350 to Mrs S for the injustice caused.
31. The Council agreed to take the following action within 3 months of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Review procedures to ensure there are processes in place to follow up suggestions discussed, such as the 1:1 travel arrangement and control measures and are acted on and investigated promptly.
2. Ensure officers are reminded case conference notes need to be made and retained showing evidence considered, the decision, and the reasons for the decision.
3. Review procedures so parents and schools are given feedback from staff at the time they have concerns about a child’s transport arrangements.
4. Remind staff who have concerns about a child’s transport arrangements to record them and raise them with a manager promptly.
5. Review why the complaint made in April was not acknowledged or actioned so this cannot be repeated in the future.
6. Provide us with an update about its review of transport teams, the introduction of the ‘link’ meetings to improve communications, and the introduction of new software in the Transport Service.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I found fault on Mrs S’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman