Summary: We found fault on Mrs D’s complaint about the Council failing to pay the full amount of backdated Personal Travel Budget for her children’s home to school transport. It failed to give information when it made the payment showing how it had been calculated. This caused some confusion and frustration. It also failed to keep minutes of appeal panel hearings although has now changed its practice. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained about the Council failing to pay the full amount of back dated Personal Travel Budget (PTB) for her children’s home to school transport as agreed by the transport appeal panel: as a result, she was left to fund their transport costs, and her family was caused a great deal of distress, anxiety, and inconvenience.

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.
5. 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 have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated any complaint Mrs D may have after March 2024. This was because this was when the Council completed its stage 2 complaint process and signposted her to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy. The Council had the opportunity to respond to her complaints up to this date, but not after it.
7. Nor have I investigated any decision about the Council’s decision to end the Personal Travel Budget. This was because this was subject to a separate investigation (24 006 544).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the evidence provided by Mrs D, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs D and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

9. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability, and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

Council policy Home-to-School Travel Assistance Policy: (Personal Travel Budgets)

10. A Personal Travel Budget (PTB) is a payment for the parents of a child or young person who is eligible for travel assistance. It is a payment to spend on their travel to school which meets the needs of the family. This could be by paying the cost of driving the child to school, for example, or paying fares for taxis or public transport.
11. Issuing a PTB is at the discretion of the Council. It is a contribution towards the cost of travel and may not meet the full cost of the means of the chosen transportation.
12. The Council has a two stage appeals process against decisions on travel assistance applications about the transport arrangements offered. This involves:

• Stage 1: A review by a senior officer; and
• Stage 2: A hearing by an independent panel.

What happened

13. Mrs D has two daughters, E who started school in October 2022, and F, who started school in December. Both have Education, Health and Care plans (EHC plans) which named the school they should attend. The school was more than 30 miles away.
14. Mrs D applied for home to school transport for E in November 2022 and F in March 2023. She explained E and F would find public transport overwhelming and too loud. They both have anxiety and cannot travel together.
15. A panel considered E’s application in December 2022 and following this, in January 2023, the Council wrote and said it would pay £15.38 each day for E’s travel costs. It sent her travel claim forms to complete and submit monthly. The following month, Mrs D challenged this decision.
16. A panel considered F’s application in March 2023 and decided to pay her the same rate.
17. At this point, Mrs D paid for transport but was again expected to submit invoices to the Council for the PTB during this period. The Council confirmed Mrs D did not submit invoices as she was appealing the awards.
18. In May, the Council told Mrs D it would pay a personal budget of £61.20 a day. This was a total payment for both E and F travelling in the same car. It covered four journeys a day at the rate of 45p a mile for 34 miles. It would back date the payment to December 2022 as this was the date of the first appeal panel decision. Their attendance at school would need confirming. Mrs D appealed again.
19. In August 2023, the appeal panel upheld her appeal. The panel decided:

• E and F to each receive a PTB of 45p x mile x four journeys a day;
• E’s payments backdated to October 2022;
• F’s payments backdated to December 2022;
• There was enough evidence to justify a separate arrangement for E and F;
• Commissioned transport (arranged by the Council) was not an option because of E and F’s complex needs but the arrangement needed reviewing in time for the next academic year.

20. The Council confirmed the payment to Mrs D would now be £120 a day for both children (£600 a week).
21. In October, the Council explained it had to check school attendance as it would only pay for those days E and F attended school. This would also apply to back payments. At the end of the month, Mrs D told the Council she brought E and F back from school in her car. This started from September. The Council noted there was a discrepancy in what Mrs D told the appeal panel and what she put on her application forms about them travelling together.
22. Mrs D complained again when the amount of backpay she received did not match the amount agreed by the appeal panel.
23. The Council then cancelled her PTB and arranged for E and F to go to school in a taxi. This was despite her providing evidence to the panel about how they could not manage this. The Council had received information from the school that E and F had been driven in separately on multiple occasions, but it was unaware of any schedule. It depended how they both were at the end of the school day, but they had been returning home together.
24. In January 2024, the Council received evidence from an EHC casework officer which said E and F were transported to and from school before. The officer had witnessed Mr D collecting them both while Mrs D remained on a virtual meeting.
25. In February, the Council paid £8,277.30 in back payments. It sent her no breakdown showing how this amount was reached. The Council explained the total cost of the PTB from October 2022 to December 2023 was:

• 2022/23: £ 8,262.00
• 2023/24: £ 6,089.40

Total: £14,351.40

26. The Council paid Mrs D £6,074.10 for PTB invoices sent from September to December 2023. The total back payment balance left to pay her, therefore, was £8,277.30. When making this payment, it had to check E and F’s attendance with the school to check the information Mrs D gave it.
27. Mrs D said she expected to receive about £14,000 from the Council based on E and F’s attendance at school. The Council said its calculation was correct. It also said it would start providing its own transport the same month which would be more cost effective.
28. She complained the Council failed to provide any details of how it calculated this amount. She argued the panel agreed six car journeys a day which included empty return journeys. Her and her husband would take E and F in separate cars in the morning but, only Mrs D would bring them home from school at the end of the day. When E and F travel together in the morning, they fight, but at the end of the day, they usually sleep in her car as they are tired.
29. In March, the Council reviewed its decision and decided it would continue to offer the commissioned transport. It said it was in line with its Home to School Travel Assistance policy. The evidence showed E and F could travel together. The Council apologised for the delay in finalising her back payment.
30. Mrs D complained to the Council in August and received the Council’s stage 1 response the following month. This said her complaint had been dealt with by the panel and she needed to clarify what she thought remained outstanding.
31. She asked for it to go to stage 2 in October. The Council responded saying it had a duty to check attendance at school and pay only for those days. It asked about their attendance and travel arrangements from school start dates. It said the arrangements were unclear. At the panel hearing, she had said she took both girls in one car. The application forms she completed said both were taken in separate cars from December 2022 but had told the panel this had stopped due to the impact on her husband’s work.
32. The Council argued the backdated amount was correct and in line with the appeal panel decision of August 2023. It used the mileage rate of 45p which is used where there was no agreement. It calculated the amount based on four trips of 34 miles at 45p a mile. It explained while it did not give a breakdown showing its calculations, the ‘principle of adjustment was communicated’. The Council also explained PTB payments were usually made according to submitted applications.
33. I considered the spreadsheet the Council provided showing attendance, number of journeys it funded, the mileage rate, and the number of miles travelled. It also showed the amounts paid.

My findings

34. I found the following:
1. It was fault for the Council not to provide a detailed breakdown for the backdated payment of £8,277.30. By failing to do so, it made it difficult for Mrs D to check whether the payment was correct as there was no basis given for it. Had it given a clear breakdown about it, this might have cleared up some of the confusion about payments. I am satisfied this caused Mrs D some injustice as she had the uncertainty of not knowing whether the amounts were correct. She also had the frustration, time and trouble, and stress of corresponding with the Council about it.
2. Mrs D expected to receive about £14,000. The evidence showed this was the figure she received when the balance was paid to her, taking account of previous payments made.
3. The Council accepted there was a delay in finalising the back payment. The evidence showed the final payment was made in February 2024. The delay was fault and caused her some injustice as she had the distress of not knowing when it would be paid. It also caused some financial strain on the family.
4. It was reasonable for the Council to expect Mrs D to send her invoices regularly for the journeys made under the PTB. The initial letters to her explained she needed to complete and return attached claim forms monthly.
5. It was also reasonable for the Council to check the children’s attendance when it received invoices to ensure it was paying for days when the children were at school.
6. The Council decided to reduce the number of journeys it would pay from when it became aware of the evidence received about them travelling together. This was effective from mid-January 2023. The Council would pay for 4 journeys or 6, depending on whether one ,or both, children attended. It did not pay for 8 journeys because it became aware they were returning home in one car.
7. On balance, I found no fault with the calculation of the payments it made to Mrs D based on attendance and its assessment of the travel arrangements following receipt of new information after the appeal panel decision. I reached this conclusion having read the information the Council received from the school about attendance of both E and F.
8. It was fault not to make and retain minutes of the panel meetings. This meant there was nothing to show what it considered, and how it considered it, when it reached its decisions. While letters were sent to Mrs D with the panel’s decision, there was nothing to show these accurately reflected what the panels decided.

Back to top

Action

35. I considered our guidance on remedies along with the action the Council has already taken which included an apology for the time taken to send her the back pay. Since the appeals, the Council also confirmed Stage 2 appeals now keep minutes of the hearing as a matter of good practice.
36. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mrs D a written apology for the injustice caused by failing to send her a detailed breakdown of the backdated payment.
2. Pay £150 to Mrs D for the distress this failure caused.
3. Review the procedure for sending back payments so a detailed breakdown is given setting out how the amount paid was calculated, taking account of the period covered, the number of journeys accepted and their dates, for example.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I found fault on Mrs D’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