Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate a payment for home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complained the Council would not backdate a payment for home to school transport after she said she could no longer take her child to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s child (Y) has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). This named a school (School Z) and said Miss X was responsible for providing transport. This was because the Council had decided it was not the nearest school which could meet Y’s needs.
6. On 08 February 2024 Miss X told the Council she could no longer transport Y to School Z. Miss X asked the Council to find a different school. At the end of May Miss X withdrew Y from School Z. The Council told Miss X on 14 June it considered School Z to be the nearest school which could met Y’s needs and it would provide transport assistance.
7. The Council subsequently amended Y’s EHC Plan to name a different school for September 2024.
8. Miss X contends the Council should pay for transport from 08 February to the end of May because it had not fond an alternative placement. The Council has considered Miss X’s request under its appeals process. At the second stage of the process an independent panel decided not to uphold her appeal. The panel said there was no responsibility to provide transport assistance as there was an EHC Plan in place which named School Z. This said it was Miss X’s responsibility to provide transport.
9. The original decision to name a school in Y’s EHC Plan on the basis Miss X would provide transport is one the Council was entitled to take. Statutory Guidance on home to school transport makes this clear.
10. Once Miss X asked the Council to secure a different school for her child, the Council was required to consider her request. If Miss X wanted to challenge the Council’s eventual decision, then an appeal to the SEND Tribunal would have been the appropriate route.
11. But until the Council had finished considering Miss X’s request, the previous EHC Plan remained in place. This said Miss X was responsible for providing transport. We will not therefore criticise the Council for refusing her request for backdated costs.
12. If there had been significant delay in considering Miss X’s request for an alternative placement, then we could potentially criticise the Council. But that is not the case here. Even with a scheduled annual review, the Council has 12 weeks from the review meeting to issue a revised EHC Plan. Invites must also be sent at least two weeks before the meeting. Reviewing an EHC Plan and changing the placement does not happen immediately.
13. There were eighteen weeks between Miss X asking for an alternative placement and the Council agreeing to provide transport to School Z. But by this point Miss X had withdrawn Y from School Z two weeks earlier. The end of May included the half-term break. There is not enough evidence of delay, representing significant fault by the Council, or injustice to Miss X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman