Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to decline to reimburse Ms X for taxi journeys out of its school transport budget. It was entitled to ask Ms X to first provide evidence about the taxi service that was used.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
1. The Council wrongly named a mainstream school in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan when this was not suitable for them, which caused them to avoidably miss education for much of 2024;
2. once the Council agreed her child needed a specialist school in late 2024, it failed to provide suitable transport to that school;
3. the Council failed to reimburse Ms X when she funded school transport herself between 24 February 2025 and 31 March 2025; and
4. the Council wrongly declined to pay her the £375 that it had initially agreed to, to reflect a later period of missed provision for her child in early 2025.
2. Ms X said because of the Council’s faults, she has also been caused significant distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
6. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against the named school in a child or young person’s EHC Plan.
7. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
8. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
9. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.
10. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

11. I have not investigated complaint 1a because the missed education for this period was due to a disagreement over the Council naming a mainstream school in Z’s EHC Plan. This carried a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal which Ms X used. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 5-9, I cannot investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint, including any missed education that arose as a result.
12. I have also not investigated complaint 1b. Ms X appropriately used the Council’s transport appeals process to raise concerns regarding Z’s school transport. The Council concluded that the transport was unsuitable and promptly put in place alternative transport. We could not add to any previous investigation by the Council and could not achieve any more meaningful outcome for Ms X through further investigation. I have therefore decided not to investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint.
13. I have considered complaints 1c and 1d in more detail below.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Ms X and the Council were given an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. All comments received were considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

16. Ms X complained to the Council about her child, Z, missing out on education for much of 2024. The Council responded in December 2024 and said it had been at fault. To recognise the impact of this, it paid Ms X £5,750 as a financial remedy.
17. By this time, the Council had decided Z should attend a specialist, rather than mainstream school. By the time Z was due to start school, the Council had not finished processing her transport application.
18. Ms X did not agree to transport Z to school herself and be paid mileage rates. Instead the Council and Ms X agreed that while it finished arranging Z’s school transport in the long term, Z could be taken to school by taxis temporarily. Ms X agreed to arrange the taxis and the Council would reimburse her.
19. This arrangement continued between 24 February 2025 and 31 March 2025. From 31 March 2025 the arrangement stopped and the Council commissioned a taxi service itself to transport Z to and from school.
20. Ms X was reimbursed for Z’s taxi fares for the first three weeks of the temporary arrangement (a total of £1,655) but not for the remaining three weeks. After the first three weeks the Council decided it needed more information about the taxi service Ms X had used because the invoices provided did not show the name of a taxi firm.
21. Ms X told the Ombudsman she could not tell the Council the name of the taxi company because the taxi driver was an independent taxi driver and did not work for a company. Ms X sent the Council a licence number but the Council said it had concerns the licence was not for a taxi driver.
22. The Council asked if it could contact the taxi driver. Ms X told the Ombudsman she said no to this request, because the Council was not entitled to obtain this information due to data protection laws. The Council said unless Ms X provided more evidence about the taxi service used, it would not provide reimbursement for the remaining three weeks of transport she had asked to be paid for.
23. By this time the Council had also accepted fault through another complaint response, for more missed education provision. The Council offered to pay Ms X £375 to reflect education Z missed in early 2025. However the Council said it would not pay this £375 until Ms X provided the requested evidence regarding the taxis it had reimbursed Ms X for.
24. Ms X did not provide any further information about the taxi service. The Council therefore has not paid the last three weeks of invoices or the £375 financial remedy.

My findings

25. The Council was entitled to ask Ms X for additional evidence to show how public money was being used in relation to the taxi journeys. Its request for information was proportionate and reasonable and in accordance with normal administrative practice. Ms X said she and the driver decided this was not a reasonable request and declined to provide this further information to the Council.
26. The Council was entitled to decide it had not been provided with enough information to conclude its enquiries to safeguard the use of public money. It was therefore not at fault for declining to reimburse Ms X for these further taxi payments.
27. The Council also refused to pay Ms X the £375 financial remedy it had offered to reflect some missed education in early 2025, until this additional evidence was provided. It is open to Ms X to provide the Council with the additional information it requires about the taxi journeys, by allowing the Council to contact the taxi driver, so that the Council can conclude its due diligence before it pays her this money.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman