Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to award his child a bus pass to travel to school. He says this is not a suitable method of transport as his son cannot travel alone on the bus due to his special educational needs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to award his child a bus pass to travel to school. He says this is not a suitable method of transport as his son cannot travel alone on the bus due to his special educational needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. Mr X’s child has an education, health, and care (EHC) plan. The plan names a single school in section I. Mr X applied for home to school transport. The Council initially awarded the child a bus pass. The Council confirmed it later offered Mr X a bus pass cash equivalent as it was accepted a bus pass was not suitable.
6. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X an injustice. This is because we are not satisfied the Council made its decision about the type of transport to award was made properly.
7. The Council must ensure the travel arrangements they make take account of the needs of the child concerned. Guidance provides an example that it would not be appropriate to provide a pass for free travel on a bus service to a child whose special educational needs (SEN) meant they cannot travel on a bus, even where accompanied.
8. Mr X provided the Council with reasons why he or his wife could accompany his child on his journey to school. There is evidence the appeal panel considered Mr X’s stated medical reasons for why he could not accompany and that it had asked Mr X how his children were currently transported to their respective schools.
9. However, the panel’s decision for why it was satisfied the parents could accompany was that working patterns, or the fact they have children attending more than one school, “would not normally be considered good reasons for a parent being unable to accompany their child”. This implies the Council’s rationale is generic, rather than specific to Mr X’s stated circumstances. There is therefore uncertainty about whether the Council has properly considered the specifics of Mr X’s case and the reasons he has provided for why the parents cannot accompany the child.
10. In addition, the child’s EHC plan notes they have sensory needs and notes they cannot cope with unexpected loud noises. The Council said it offered Mr X a bus pass cash equivalent because it accepted a bus pass was not suitable. This implies the Council accepts bus transport/travel is not suitable due to the child’s SEN.
11. Therefore, given this, it is not clear why the Council considers a bus pass cash equivalent to be sufficient, especially as it is unlikely the money awarded will be enough to arrange alternative suitable transport for the child.
12. I am satisfied the likely fault will have caused some uncertainty over whether the Council’s decision to award a bus pass cash equivalent to meet its duty to provide free home to school transport was correct.
13. We therefore asked the Council to remedy this by completing the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified and the uncertainty caused
• Complete a fresh stage two appeal, giving particular consideration to the points detailed in this decision. Mr X should be given the opportunity to provide any further comments or evidence.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We have upheld this complaint because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman