Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council considered her request for school transport assistance, delay in making an agreed back payment, and communication issues. We find the Council at fault for delay, causing uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. However, we find the Council has already taken suitable action to address the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• Delayed in making a decision on transport assistance to alternative provision and school for her son, Y;
• Failed to pay the uplift to the personal transport budget it had promised;
• Refused to correspond with her following receipt of a letter from her MP; and
• Incorrectly accused her of unreasonable behaviour and refused to discuss this with her.
2. Mrs X says this situation has caused her real anxiety and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mrs X previously brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about related events. Part of Mrs X’s previous complaint related to delay in deciding an application for transport assistance between January 2024 and July 2024.
7. This decision found in July 2024 Mrs X asked the Council to provide an allowance for the costs incurred in driving Y to alternative provision settings between January 2024 and July 2024. The decision found the Council had failed to deal with Mrs X’s request and this fault meant Mrs X remained without a clear decision on her application for transport costs, causing frustration and uncertainty.
8. The decision recommended the Council consider and determine Mrs X’s application for transport costs for the period between January 2024 and July 2024. The previous decision did not recommend any symbolic remedy or payment for the delay as it left that to be decided in this complaint, after the subsequent period was also considered.
9. I have not reinvestigated any of the issues considered in the previous decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mrs X 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

Relevant law and policy

12. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
13. 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)
14. If only one school is named in a young person’s EHC plan, then that is the school the council has determined is the nearest suitable school for the child. It is therefore the nearest ‘qualifying school’ for the child to attend for school transport consideration. This is because the council has not made arrangements for the child to attend a closer school. (S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 346.) Where the child is attending the ‘nearest suitable school’, they will qualify for free transport, provided any other relevant conditions are met.
15. The Council has a published guidance note on the management of unreasonable contact and customer behaviour which sets out what it considers to be unreasonable behaviour and the possible consequences. The definition of unreasonable behaviour includes repeated pursuit of the same matter. The policy accepts contact may be amicable but still place heavy demands on staff time. Possible actions where the Council identifies unreasonable behaviour include limiting or restricting contact. The policy explains at the first stage, the Council will write to the customer to explain how their behaviour and contact is unreasonable, what they should do to change this, and the actions the Council may take if the behaviour does not change.

What happened

16. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
17. Y has SEN and his education is supported by an EHC Plan. From January 2024, while School A was named on Y’s EHC Plan, his education was delivered by alternative provision settings.
18. A review of Y’s EHC Plan resulted in School B being named from September 2024. The Council approved Mrs X’s transport application to School B from September 2024. The personal transport budget consisted of £16.10 per day in mileage.
19. On 19 September Mrs X contacted the Council to explain the journey to School B was more difficult than expected and asked it to consider increasing the personal transport budget to include a passenger assistant.
20. On 1 October the Council estimated an uplift of £17.88 per day but explained it would need to discuss the uplift in transport costs to be signed off by senior managers. Mrs X chased an answer to this by email but received no response.
21. In October 2024, Mrs X’s MP wrote to the Council on her behalf to chase the response to her request for the backdated transport payment.
22. Mrs X chased the Council by email again several times later that month.
23. In November 2024, the Council responded directly to Mrs X’s MP. The Council explained the history of Mrs X’s personal transport budget, how it had considered the requested back payment, and why the uplift had not yet been agreed.
24. Mrs X then contacted the Council again to raise the same issues that had been brought by her MP and to chase an outcome to her request.
25. The Council emailed Mrs X to explain it takes a zero-tolerance approach to unreasonable behaviour. It said Mrs X had taken a scattergun approach while raising duplicate matters and this was not conducive to a constructive resolution but put a strain on its frontline resources. When Mrs X questioned what was considered unreasonable, the Council referred her to its unreasonable behaviour policy.
26. In April 2025 the Council provided Mrs X with an updated personal transport budget. This included the uplift of £17.89 per day. The Council also made a back payment of £3,381.21 to Mrs X to cover from September 2024, which was the equivalent of 189 days at £17.89 per day.
27. In June 2025 the Council also paid Mrs X £500 in respect of the delay in considering her personal transport budget requests.

Analysis

28. Mrs X contacted the Council on 19 September 2024 to request an uplift to her personal transport budget. The Council considered this and confirmed on 1 October 2024 that it would refer to senior management for approval of an uplift of £17.89 per day. The Council appears to have initially considered the matter promptly and I do not find it at fault here. As of April 2025, the Council had paid Mrs X £3,381.21 which was the uplift backdated to the start of the academic year. The Council ensured Mrs X received the uplift she was entitled to on top of the previously agreed mileage and I do not find it at fault here.
29. However, there was a significant delay in providing Mrs X with the backdated uplift payment. This amounts to fault and caused significant frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X as well as meaning she had to spend time and effort chasing an outcome, often without response, which is injustice. The decision on Mrs X’s previous complaint also identified a delay in dealing with her transport assistance application but reserved making a recommendation until this complaint was considered in order to avoid duplication of a remedy for this injustice. The Council has now paid Mrs X £500 to recognise the injustice she was caused by the delays. I find this to be suitable action to recognise the injustice caused.
30. Mrs X has said the Council refused to correspond with her once she contacted her MP and did not even copy her into its response to the MP. I can understand Mrs X’s frustration here and why she feels she ought to have been copied into the correspondence. However, as the MP contacted the Council directly, I do not find the Council at fault for responding back to the MP directly. I have seen evidence the Council maintained contact with Mrs X subsequently to the MP contact, so I could not find it at fault for refusing to correspond with Mrs X after this point.
31. Mrs X has also said the Council incorrectly accused her of unreasonable behaviour. The Council has said it only provided a ‘soft warning’ of its policy as it felt Mrs X was repeatedly raising the same issues through different channels which was beginning to disproportionately put a strain on its frontline staff. I understand this has been particularly upsetting for Mrs X, and I can understand why Mrs X felt the need to raise the issues several times and through different channels given the history of non-response from the Council. However, the Council only appears to have drawn Mrs X’s attention to its policy and it did explain the reasons for doing so. The Council never took formal action to restrict Mrs X’s communication and only appears to have been attempting to request that she focus this into fewer communications to make it easier to respond. I do not find the Council at fault here.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mrs X’s transport assistance request and providing her with the backdated uplift to her transport costs causing injustice. However, I find the Council has already taken steps to address this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman