Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about an incident when her son was collected by the wrong taxi because we could not add to the Council’s investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains her son, B, was collected by the wrong taxi and taken to the wrong school before it came to light there had been a mix-up with another child with the same name. Ms M says the incident caused B considerable distress.
2. Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms M.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council provides school transport for Ms M’s son, B.
7. In June 2025, a different taxi arrived to collect B and take him to school. Ms M thought nothing of the change because she had recently complained about the previous taxi and assumed the new taxi was in response to her complaint. The taxi driver and escort knew her son’s name.
8. An hour and a half later, Ms M says the taxi driver telephoned her to say there had been a mistake and they had the wrong child. They had taken B to the wrong school. When B arrived at the right school later that morning, he was extremely distressed.
9. Ms M complained to the Council. The Council explained there had been a mix-up with a child with the same name because an officer had copied information from a spreadsheet. The Council sent the wrong taxi to Ms M’s home. The Council apologised and explained the steps it had taken to ensure similar mistakes would not happen in the future.
10. Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s response. She says the officer she spoke to was rude and dismissive. She says the Council said B told the taxi driver he was at the wrong school. Ms M says this is a lie because B is non-verbal. She wants to know where B was in the hour and a half between leaving her home and arriving at the wrong school. She wants compensation.
11. I do not underestimate the distress the incident caused B, and the worry it has caused for Ms M. Regrettably, however, I do not consider there is anything we could add to the Council’s response with further investigation. The Council has provided a credible explanation for how the mix-up happened and explained the steps it will take to prevent it happening again. And the Council has apologised. The Ombudsman is an administrative review body. We do not have the means to establish B’s whereabouts during his journey, or how it came to light he was at the wrong school. We do not award compensation. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman