• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Action
• Decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had unreasonably (and at short notice) removed her daughter’s bus pass for free transport to school from Ms B’s address.The Council did not properly consider the question of where C’s main residence was and has failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms B and C. The Council has now agreed to apologise to Ms B, pay her £1250, consider any new application she submits and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that West Berkshire Council (the Council) unreasonably removed her daughter, C’s free bus pass to school from her address following a successful application by her ex-husband, without considering the shared care arrangements. It has failed to restore the bus pass to Ms B or offer her appropriate compensation for the fault. This has caused Ms B and C significant distress as C had to live with her father full-time and Ms B cannot afford the cost of the bus pass.

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 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s school transport policy

6. This policy says in respect of shared care arrangements that where parents are separated or divorced, entitlement is assessed from the home where the child spends the majority of their time. Where a child spends equal amounts of school days with each parent, travelling from two addresses to school, entitlement will be assessed from both addresses and evidence may be required.

What happened

7. Ms B shares care of her daughter C with C’s father, Mr D on a 50:50 basis. In April 2022 the Council approved her application for free transport from her address for C to get to school. In May 2023 it approved the claim for the following academic year.
8. In April 2024 Mr D applied for a free bus pass for C from his house. The Council initially refused the application, but following a successful appeal the Council granted him the free bus pass. The Council did not consider where C spent most of her time but assumed that Mr D’s address was C’s main residence.
9. On 8 August 2024 the Council wrote to Ms B informing her that it was removing her free bus pass due to Mr D’s successful appeal from his address. Ms B contacted the Council about this decision.
10. The Council replied saying that the main residence was usually the address from which the original school application was made unless there has been a change of address that necessitates a re-evaluation of transport eligibility. It acknowledged the question of shared care should have been identified earlier by both parties. It requested evidence to support the shared care arrangement. Otherwise, the decision would remain as found in Mr D’s appeal: he will receive the free bus pass.
11. Ms B submitted an appeal against the decision to remove her bus pass and made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure on 11 September 2024.
12. The Council apologised for the delay in responding and for the shock of receiving the letter revoking the bus pass. It accepted it was at fault for not fully investigating in 2022 and 2024 the duplicate applications submitted for the same child. It said that it would usually contact both parties involved to seek clarification of the child’s main residence. It apologised and said it would remind staff of this for the future. But it said it could only provide a bus pass from one address, the child’s main address and this was for the parents (or courts) to decide. In the absence of any other evidence or a new application from a different address the bus pass would remain from Mr D’s address.
13. Ms B escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s procedure. The Council responded in October 2024. It upheld her complaint about the way in which the bus pass had been removed from Ms B and offered her £50 for the inconvenience and stress caused by the errors.
14. It did not uphold her complaint that the request for evidence of 50/50 shared care was inconsistent. It said it was for the parents to provide independent evidence of the shared care arrangement via a court order or similar document.
15. It upheld her complaint that responses to her correspondence over the summer holidays had not been timely and it would bear this in mind for the future. It did not uphold the complaint that the errors by the Council had directly led to her changing C’s living arrangements.
16. In the meantime, the Council refused her appeal as a bus pass had been granted from Mr D’s address and no evidence had been submitted to change the Council’s view on the main address.
17. Ms B complained to us. She said the change to C’s living arrangements broke down after a term as it was too stressful for her. Ms B has taken on extra work to afford to pay for the bus pass.

Analysis

18. The Council has accepted fault in the way it dealt with the duplicate applications for a bus pass in 2022 and 2024. Because it did not properly establish the main address with both parties, the Council made an assumption regarding the main address as part of the appeal process, without consulting Ms B. As she had no knowledge of the appeal, the letter revoking the bus pass was a significant shock. This was exacerbated by the timing of the letter in the middle of the summer holidays with only a couple of weeks before the start of the new term.
19. The fault also meant Ms B had to significantly change C’s living arrangements because Ms B could not afford to pay £990 for a bus pass from this address. This caused distress and inconvenience to both Ms B and C.
20. I accept it is for the parents to decide on the main residence for the purposes of the bus pass. However, it then seems contradictory to require either party to provide evidence of the arrangement if the Council has no role in that decision and assumes that the address on the application is the main residence. I also note it is common for shared care arrangements to have been mutually agreed between parents with no court involvement and no requirement to specify a main residence, so there is no evidence to provide to support the arrangement. This lack of clarity over how the decision on main residence is made was fault which caused additional confusion to Ms B.

Back to top

Action

21. While I welcome the Council’s recognition of fault, I do not consider it has fully assessed Ms B’s injustice or offered an adequate payment in recognition of that injustice. I would point out that our minimum amount for a symbolic payment is £100.
22. So I recommended, within one month of the date of my final decision, that the Council:
    • apologises to Ms B;
    • pays her £1250 for the removal of the bus pass, along with the distress and inconvenience she has experienced;
    • if Ms B were to submit a new application for a bus pass with any evidence she can gather, to support her view that her address is C’s main residence, that the Council properly considers the case (without requiring evidence of a recent change of address), exploring the situation with both parents.
23. I also recommend that within three months the Council:
    • reviews its transport policy to clarify how it will treat applications from parents with 50:50 shared care arrangements not ordered by the court and in what circumstances and for what purpose it would expect evidence to be provided.
24. The Council has agreed to my recommnedations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page