Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to seek confirmation of whether a pupil had previously hit staff on school transport before reaching a decision about the nature of transport required. The Council will apologise, provide a payment to remedy injustice and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council offered shared, not solo, home to school transport for his child, Y, despite evidence this was unsuitable and unsafe.
2. Mr X says the lack of suitable transport led to a safeguarding incident and to Y missing five weeks of school.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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.
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Key events

10. Y received solo transport to school provided by the Council until Autumn 2023, when this was changed to shared transport. Mr X raised concerns the journey time was often excessive and caused Y distress. The Council agreed to split the route.
11. Y was due to move to a new school that was closer to home in Spring 2024. Mr X reapplied for transport but did not initially request solo transport on the application form or set out why this was required. Mr X did contact the Council after he had applied to say he considered solo transport was needed. In emails Mr X said this was because Y could get distressed when near other children. The Council decided to provide shared transport by minibus to the new school.
12. Mr X immediately requested a review stating Y was getting distressed and lashing out on the shared transport and this had not been an issue with solo transport. He said he would obtain more evidence to support this.
13. Mr X told me the taxi driver had come to his door and expressed concerns including saying Y had hit him whilst he was driving which risked crashing the vehicle. However, the Council told me it received no formal incident reports.
14. Mr X says he spoke to the Council by phone. While one call is referred to in Council records, the Council has not kept a record of any discussions.
15. Mr X provided supporting evidence from the school and taxi driver. The school said Y did travel on shared transport for school trips but the seats around her had to be kept empty and there was 1:1 staffing. The current driver sent a text describing an increase in aggressive behaviour by Y, however this was vague and did not list the concerns the driver had spoken to Mr X about previously. Mr X told me he suspects the previous driver was worried about his job and did not want to put all the incidents in writing.
16. The Council reviewed its decision for shared transport and upheld it. The review decision was made a week after Y should have started the new school. Mr X had not sent Y to school because he considered the transport offered unsuitable and unsafe and expected the decision to be reversed on review. The decision referred only to the evidence from school, not the text sent by the driver.
17. A few days after the review decision the Council contacted the taxi company asking for information about incidents the previous month of Y hitting out at crew. It referred to incident(s) on the date Mr X had first contacted the Council to request solo transport.
18. The Council also arranged a stage two appeal.
19. Y started to use the shared transport to the new school. Before the appeal was heard there was a significant incident on the minibus when Y became very distressed, stripped off clothes, punched the escort and driver and injured other children.
20. The Council then reversed the decision before the appeal hearing was heard and offered solo transport.
21. Mr X complained. The Council initially said its decision making was sound on the evidence available, but then, at stage two of the complaint process acknowledged that ‘further consideration of the evidence provided by [Mr X] and the transport provider in a timely manner would have altered our decision sooner’. The Council offered Mr X a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the impact of the fault.
22. Mr X was dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. Mr X told us there had been incidents going back to Autumn 2023 and the Council was aware of this. Mr X said given the information he had shared with the Council he could not believe they had not offered solo transport.
23. The Council indicated it wished to review the matter itself again. It has now done so and increased the financial remedy offered to Mr X to £2000 to acknowledge Y missed five weeks of school. The Council has used the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies to decide on this figure. However, the Council also said it could not fully uphold Mr X’s complaint because:
• The original decision was correct based on the circumstances and evidence at the time.
• Y had travelled on shared transport before and while showing some challenging behaviours these were not uncommon and crew were trained to manage these situations.
• At review the Council did not consider the evidence from the school and driver justified solo transport. Y would have a shorter journey to the new school with a different cohort and crew.
• The incidents which led to Y being removed from shared transport were extreme and of higher frequency than had previously been displayed and could not have been foreseen.
24. The Council said it should have reviewed the decision sooner but does not say why. It also says had it done so, this would not have altered its decision. Even so it said it would offer a significant financial remedy as above.
25. Mr X disagrees with the view his complaint should only be partially upheld and finds the Council’s responses contradictory.

Analysis

26. It is unfortunate the Council did not keep records of its discussions with Mr X as there is clearly a difference between the seriousness of the issues Mr X says he brought to the Council’s attention and the evidence the Council had on file.
27. The Council has accepted fault and says it should have reversed the decision sooner, but it is unclear what evidence it considers it should have reviewed sooner. It also says even if it had done so, this would not have altered its decision. I agree with Mr X this does not make sense and is contradictory.
28. I find on the balance of probabilities the Council must have been aware of incident(s) of Y hitting out at crew because it wrote to the taxi company after the review decision seeking information about this. It referred to incidents on the date Mr Y first contacted the Council to request solo transport. This information was not in any emails so the Council must have become aware of it through the phone conversation with Mr X which is recorded as being made the day before the original decision. I find on the balance of probabilities Mr X’s account that he shared this information before the decisions were made is likely to be accurate.
29. I acknowledge there was insufficient written evidence from the taxi company and driver at the time the Council made its decisions, but the Council should have followed up with the taxi company earlier and should not have made decisions when it was awaiting further evidence about incident(s) of Y hitting staff, including potentially the driver while the vehicle was moving. Mr X is correct to say had the Council obtained confirmation Y had hit the driver previously, then later events could have been foreseen and avoided.
30. While there is fault, the Council has now offered a financial payment of £2000 to reflect the impact of the fault, including that Y missed out on education for five weeks until solo transport was in place. I consider this a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks of my final decision:
• The Council will pay Mr X the financial remedy of £2000 it has now offered.
• The Council will provide an apology that takes full responsibility for the findings set out above. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
• The Council will remind staff to keep records of important information gathered by phone, as well as that provided by email or letter, and take this into account when decisions about eligibility are being made.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council in failing to seek confirmation of whether a pupil had previously hit staff on school transport before reaching a decision about the nature of transport required. I am satisfied the agreed actions set out above are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. The complaint is upheld.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman