Kent County Council (24 008 415)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed in agreeing to pay a personal travel budget for her child’s transport to school and delayed in making agreed back payments. We found the Council delayed in agreeing to pay a personal travel budget. However, we were satisfied with the action it took to resolve the matter.
The complaint
- Ms X complains that the Council delayed in agreeing to pay a personal travel budget for her child’s transport to school and delayed in making back payments. As a result, she incurred costs in transporting her child to and from school when she should not have needed to and has been caused avoidable distress and inconvenience in having to chase up the Council for payment.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered all the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
- Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
- Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I found
Legal and administrative background
Education, health and care plan
- A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them and names the school the child will attend.
Home to school transport
- 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)
- The Government issued statutory guidance in July 2014 to local education authorities on home to school transport. The guidance says councils must ensure the travel arrangements they make take account of the needs of the child concerned. The arrangements should enable the child to travel in reasonable safety and comfort, and without undue stress, strain or difficulty, so that wherever possible they arrive at school ready to learn.
Personal transport budget
- The Council’s website states that, if a child has special educational needs and meets the eligibility criteria for free school transport they may also be able to apply for a personal transport budget (PTB) if they have an EHC plan.
- A PTB is an alternative to Council organised transport. It is a payment made directly to families giving them the freedom and flexibility to make transport arrangements that suit them. The amount of the payment is based on the distance between their home and school.
Key facts
- Ms X and her family moved into the Council’s area when they were placed in temporary accommodation by their previous council. Ms X’s child, C, is disabled and has an EHC plan. After the move, he continued attending the school named in the plan which was some distance from the family’s new home.
- On 19 November 2023 Ms X applied to the Council for a PTB to transport C to and from school.
- On 19 December the Council told Ms X it needed more evidence that the family was living in its area permanently.
- On 18 January 2024 the Council informed Ms X that C qualified for free home to school transport. It said it was currently assessing her request for a PTB and she would receive an outcome in the next four weeks. It explained that a PTB is a discretionary fund paid to parents to facilitate transport to school and is only granted where it is cost-effective to do so. It said that, in reaching a decision, officers would consider any transport already in place and whether a pupil could be placed on it at a lower cost than the PTB.
- On 28 February Ms X complained about the delay in reaching a decision on her application.
- On 5 March Ms X again chased up a decision.
- On 11 March the Council wrote to Ms X declining her request for a PTB. It said C could be placed on an existing vehicle the cost of which would be less than the PTB.
- Ms X requested a review of the decision saying there were medical reasons why shared transport would not be suitable for C. She provided a copy of his diagnosis and EHC plan.
- On 11 April Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to her request for a PTB and explained that there had been a significant delay in the EHC plan being transferred from the previous council. It said the transport team had now considered her application and decided C was eligible for free transport but not for a PTB.
- On 15 April Ms X made a stage 2 complaint.
- The same day a school transport officer wrote to Ms X stating that her application had been reviewed and the PTB had been approved.
- Ms X asked whether the PTB would be backdated to the date of her application. The Council explained it had six weeks from the date of the application to provide assistance and, during this period, it was the parent’s responsibility to fund transport. However, it agreed to backdate the PTB to the day after the six weeks expired. It said it would backdate the payments to 1 January 2024 and the payment would be made in May 2024.
- On 10 June the Council issued a stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in responding and stated that the home to school transport issue had been resolved.
- Ms X complained to us in August 2024 saying the back payment had not been made.
- Ms X has now confirmed that the Council has made the back payment and the issue has been resolved.
Analysis
- Ms X applied for a PTB on 19 November 2023. The Council says there was a delay in reaching a decision on the application because it did not receive C’s EHC plan from the previous council until towards the end of January 2024.
- However, on 18 January 2024 the Council told Ms X she would receive a decision on her application within four weeks. The Council did not issue a decision until six weeks later, on 11 March 2024. This was fault and caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. She also incurred significant costs in transporting C to and from school during this period.
- Having reviewed its decision and agreed to a PTB, on 17 April the Council agreed to backdate the payments to 1 January 2024. This is in line with its policy which states that payments will not be backdated if the application for a PTB is processed within six weeks of receipt. The Council paid the back payment in May 2024. It then continued making payments until the family left its area.
- Ms X has confirmed she is satisfied the matter has been resolved by the Council.
Final decision
- I find fault causing injustice.
- I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken to resolve the matter.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman