Summary: There was fault in the Council’s handling of transport to an educational setting, but the Council has already taken actions to remedy the injustice caused. We cannot add to the outcome that has already been achieved.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about failures in his daughter’s home to school transport. Mr X complained:
• The Council provided inappropriate vehicles that could not access the site his daughter was due to attend and there were occasions the transport did not arrive.
• Drivers complained to him about the arrangements.
• He had to drive his daughter to the alternative provision site and wait outside for several weeks.
• The Council offered by telephone to backdate a personal travel budget and include a sum for his inconvenience for this period, but within an hour of the phone call the offer had been rescinded and a lower offer made.
• The Council offered a personal travel budget for the current year but has only paid the first instalment.
2. Mr X also complained about delay by the Council responding to his complaint.

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. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
8. 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 found

9. Mr X complains about failures by the Council in providing transport when his child had to attend alternative provision. He says he had to drive his daughter for several weeks and wait outside.
10. Mr X says when the Council did arrange transport there were problems from the start.
11. Mr X says the vehicle sent on first day was late and the driver told him they did not feel safe taking his child.
12. Mr X complained the vehicle provided by the Council to access the setting his daughter needed to attend was too large. Mr X says this happened on several occasions.
13. The Council acknowledged in its stage one complaint response the first vehicle sent was too large and it says this was replaced with a smaller vehicle the next day. The Council said this vehicle could comfortably access the site. The Council apologised the first vehicle was not suitable. Mr X disagrees the issue about vehicle size was resolved quickly.
14. The Council also acknowledged there had been a transport failure on one date due to driver shortages. Again, the Council offered an apology. Mr X disagrees there were only problems on one day.
15. The Council has acknowledged it was late responding to the stage one complaint and apologised.
16. Mr X says there was a telephone discussion about providing him with a payment which he says was explained as being in recognition of the injustice, inconvenience, time and impact caused by repeated transport failures and the requirement for him to transport his child for a prolonged period. Mr X says he accepted this payment but within an hour it had been withdrawn and reduced due to a calculation error.
17. The Council says personal travel budgets are determined based on what it considers fair on a case-by-case basis. A personal travel allowance is an option where families wish to arrange transport themselves as an alternative to a place on Council arranged transport. The Council says it offered Mr X the choice of a budget or to continue with Council arranged transport.
18. The Council’s first offer of a personal budget in May 2025 was £8 per day (50p per mile), but later the Council offered a payment that also recognised Mr X’s time and inconvenience.
19. In response to our enquiries the Council told us:
• Shared transport was approved in Spring 2025 to the alternative provision setting Mr X’s daughter was due to attend two days per week.
• Mr X told the Council that private hire companies were not suitable due to previous complaints.
• The Council confirmed to Mr X transport had been arranged for after the Easter holidays and the offer remained shared transport without a passenger assistant.
• Mr X told the Council his daughter could not travel with other passengers. Mr X did not submit an appeal, but due to the timetable in place Mr X’s daughter was not scheduled to travel with other passengers in any event.
• Mr X queried the use of the first vehicle as too large. This was confirmed when the vehicle visited the site. A smaller vehicle was provided the next day.
• The Council says Mr X complained the vehicle was too early and was still too large.
• One week after the new vehicle started, the Council offered Mr X a personal travel allowance. Mr X complained this was not sufficient to meet their costs.
• The Council confirmed existing council-arranged transport on the basis the family had declined the allowance at the rate on offer.
• The Council says Mr X declined transport on arrival even when the vehicle was replaced with a smaller one.
20. The Council confirmed it did consider a personal travel allowance for Mr X again in July. The Council emailed Mr X to confirm it would increase the offer to £30 per day and backdate this to February to take account of Mr X’s time supporting transport. It told Mr X the total amount it would pay. Mr X replied agreeing to this offer. The transport team realised this sum was a mistake and wrote to Mr X correcting it within 2.5 hours of the first email. It said the figure was based on five days travel per week, but on checking the Council noted Mr X’s daughter only attended two days. The Council corrected its calculation and made an offer based on £30 per day, two days per week.
21. The Council told us the offer of £30 per day was a gesture of goodwill and backdated to February as this covered the time it was responsible for providing transport for Mr X’s daughter. This supports there was a period Mr X was transporting his child before Easter when Council arranged transport began. The Council says Mr X has continued to insist the Council pay the higher offer made in error.
22. The Council confirmed it has paid £30 per day to Mr X for the period February 2025 to Autumn 2025. It says further payments are due each term on receipt of appropriate paperwork. I have seen evidence of emails and a payment order confirming Mr X was paid up to December 2025. Mr X says there have been administrative problems with the provider which is why subsequent paperwork has been delayed.
23. The Council says the arranged transport stopped in July 2025 when the personal travel allowance was put in place.

Analysis

24. There was a period from February 2025 when the Council was responsible for transport, but Mr X transported his child. The Council has backdated a payment to Mr X of £30 per day for this period, to include a payment for Mr X’s time and inconvenience in addition to the mileage costs. I am satisfied this is a suitable remedy.
25. There is a difference of views about the extent of problems with the Council arranged transport that began around Easter. Despite not accepting the level of problems Mr X alleges, the Council has backdated the £30 per day payment to include the period Council vehicles were available but not used. I am satisfied this is an appropriate remedy and we would not recommend more. We cannot add to the outcome that has been achieved.
26. There was an error in offering Mr X a personal travel allowance for five days when his daughter was only attending two. The error was realised within a few hours and corrected. I agree with the Council an apology is a suitable remedy and there is no justification to hold the Council to the first offer based on an incorrect calculation. Human error does happen and in this situation was very quickly corrected.
27. The Council has continued to offer Mr X £30 per day from July 2025 when transport stopped as Mr X wanted an allowance to make his own arrangements. The Council has paid Mr X up to December 2025 and payments will continue on receipt of necessary paperwork.
28. I consider the Council’s actions are a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused and there is no basis for the Ombudsman to require further action from the Council.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already remedied the injustice, and no further action is required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman