Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council was blocking access to her property preventing her son, C from accessing school transport directly outside her house. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions because it has approved the provision of two personal assistants to safely to escort C from the house to the taxi and made reasonable efforts to provide them. Neither have we found fault with the access arrangements for ongoing building work.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council) blocked access to the front of her property preventing her son, C from accessing his school transport directly outside the house. The Council has said he can be picked up safely from a short distance away, but Mrs B said this is not reasonable as he is at high risk of absconding and coming to harm. Mrs B said as a result of these problems, C is unable to attend school and Mrs B has been caused significant distress and frustration at the situation.

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 Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs 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

6. Mrs B’s son, C has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Plan states that C needs 1:1 care 24 hours a day, increasing to 2:1 when out on trips in the community.
7. Between January 2023 and November 2024 Mrs B received a Personal Travel Assistant Budget so she could arrange transport for C to and from school.
8. In June 2023 Mrs B complained about a recently granted planning permission for the Council to build some houses on land near Mrs B’s property (Complaint 1). Mrs B was concerned the work vehicles and deliveries would block access to her property and prevent her son being picked up for school. She alleged this had already happened. The Council responded to Complaint 1 at stage one of its complaints procedure in June 2023. It said no work had started on site so the vehicle she had complained about was not a Council vehicle. It also said she had commented on the planning application and her comments had been taken into account. It did not uphold her complaint.
9. Mrs B escalated Complaint 1 and in July 2023 the Council responded at stage two of its procedure. It said the planning permission granted did not involve her road and will not be blocked as part of the development. It said its contractors would be made aware of her situation and would manage any deliveries or disruption sensitively to avoid disruption to residents. It directed Mrs B to complain to us.
10. In September 2024 the Council offered C shared bus transport to school with two escorts. Mrs B appealed and in support of her appeal submitted an occupational therapist report which said that: ‘if the bus is not able to park directly outside the family home, then this will increase the walking distance [C] needs to take and also the opportunity for absconding.’
11. In late September 2024 Mrs B complained about a comment made by a contractor when she asked them to move their vehicles away from her drive and requested contractors accessed the site from the other side, away from her property (Complaint 2)
12. The Council responded in October 2024 at stage one of its complaints procedure. It said the Council was currently developing a construction management plan for the site and this would take into account the requirements of children with special educational needs in the area. It said it was not pursuing the alleged comment as it was not offensive but had suggested that in future contractors log conversations with residents so the Council can follow up on concerns and reduce the risk of confrontation.
13. In November 2024 following the transport appeal, the Council awarded solo transport with two passenger assistants to pick up C from his house, travel to school and back. The Council said it had instructed the vehicle to park as near to the house as is safe and legal and for the assistants to collect C from the house and into the taxi.
14. Mrs B escalated Complaint 2 to stage two. The Council responded to this complaint on 18 November 2024. It said the construction management plan was being developed and would outline how traffic in and out of the site would be managed. It assured Mrs B that C’s school transport would not impede safe and legal places being available for the taxi to stop within a reasonable distance from her home. It could not see any requirement for the transport pick-ups and drop-offs to be directly outside the front door of the property. It had asked contractors to consider within the construction management plan the circumstances of vulnerable children in the area. It had rearranged the main access to the site away from Mrs B's property, but there would still be occasions when contractors would need access to Mrs B’s road.
15. Mrs B complained to us in December 2024.
16. The Council sourced taxi provision with two escorts on 9 December 2024. The provider said it was struggling to find and retain travel escorts. A new provider was found on 7 January 2025 but Mrs B complained about them and continued to escort C herself. Following a further refusal this provider pulled out. A new taxi provider began on 21 January 2025 but said Mrs B refused to communicate with them. After some escort training the arrangement was ready to begin again on 24 February 2025. Mrs B objected to the escorts saying they did not speak English. The provider disputed this, supplying details of the escorts’ background and language abilities. Mrs B refused to allow the provider to continue. This pattern has continued since then and Mrs B has not allowed any provider to continue.
17. In March 2025 Mrs B complained again to the Council about the access route for the development site and the potential for blocking access to her property for C’s school transport (Complaint 3). She said the transport needed to get right up to her driveway.
18. The Council responded to Complaint 3 at the end of March 2025. It said the Council had switched the main access to the building site away from Mrs B’s property to reduce the problems with access. However, on occasion it said access would still be required on her road particularly near the end of the project when utilities would need to be installed. In respect of Mrs B’s view that any works near the property would obstruct 24 hour access to her front door which she said was necessary, it noted that the transport appeal outcome did not state that the taxi had to park directly outside the property and there was no agreement that this had to happen. It said the Council had no obligation to provide exclusive unimpeded access to the road in front of her property and it was reasonable for the contractors to access the road when reasonable and necessary.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council has said C has been awarded 2 passenger assistants to escort him safely to and from the vehicle. It is a door-to-door service and C is not required to walk any distance unaccompanied. Taxi providers have been instructed to stop as close to the property as is safe and practical. The housing department liaised with the education department to check the requirements of the transport. It says Mrs B is transporting C to school. The Council has tried 32 out of its 34 providers but no arrangement has been successful. It is pursuing the final two providers currently.

Analysis

20. I understand Mrs B is acutely concerned about the safety of her son when using the school transport. But I consider the Council has recognised C’s special needs and the risk he might run off by providing a door-to-door solo service with two escorts. This is in accordance with the requirements of his EHC Plan as he needs 2:1 supervision when out in the community. I do not consider it is reasonable for Mrs B to always expect 24 hour access to the space right outside her property. Deliveries and maintenance issues will inevitably arise which may temporarily block some of the road. However, the school transport occurs twice a day and I see no reason why access will not be available for most of that time at a reasonable distance from the property. I have not found fault with the Council’s actions in term of the transport arrangements.
21. I further understand Mrs B’s concerns are exacerbated by the ongoing development work near her property. Once again, I consider the Council has taken reasonable steps to respond to her concerns by moving the main access to the site and ensuring contractors take into account the needs of C when managing traffic access to and from the site.
22. I consider the Council has made reasonable efforts to provide transport with two escorts who are acceptable to Mrs B. I understand this has not been successful, but I do not consider that is due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman