Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his application and appeals for post-16 transport for his son. This is because here is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council’s offer of post-16 transport does not meet his son’s needs. Mr X’s son (Y) has Special Educational Needs (SEN). Mr X says the Council has wrongly relied on Y’s parents being able to take him to school and the Council’s offer of a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) is not appropriate. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not provide transport while considering his appeal and says it was slow to respond. Mr X wants the Council to provide Y with transport, service improvements, and reimburse his costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Post-16 transport

5. Councils must publish a statement specifying the arrangements they consider it necessary to make for the provision of transport or otherwise to facilitate the attendance of persons of sixth form age receiving education or training at specified institutions.
6. In assessing what transport arrangements are necessary in any specific case, the Council must take into account all relevant considerations arising in the individual circumstances of each case.
7. Where a council provides transport there is no expectation it will be free. Councils can provide assistance in the form of a PTB.
8. Parents may be expected to provide transport themselves if they are able to do so. The Courts have decided that parents of disabled sixth form aged children have to “do more”. There are, however, no “absolute rules”. What parents can be expected to do will depend on their circumstances. Each case will turn on its facts.

Background

9. Mr X asked the Council to provide his son (Y) who has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) with post-16 transport to school. The Council offered Mr X a PTB to help with transporting Y to school.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. Mr X wanted the Council to provide transport in a vehicle with a passenger assistant. Mr X said Y could not travel independently and required supervision. Mr X provided information in support of his appeal. This included the reasons Y’s parents could not provide daily transport. Mr X wanted the Council to provide interim transport while it considered his appeal.
11. At stage 1 of the process a senior officer declined to change the original offer, and Mr X escalated his appeal. A panel considered the case at stage 2. Mr X had the chance to provide extra information and to take part in the hearing. Unfortunately, Mr X could not attend. The panel’s decision was to uphold the original offer of a PTB. Mr X is unhappy with the panel’s decision and says it wrongly relied on Y’s parents being able to take him to school.

Assessment

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
13. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether the transport offered by the Council is appropriate for Y. That was for the appeal panel to decide. The question for us is whether there was evidence of significant fault in the way the panel considered the matter. I have not seen any such evidence.
14. The Council’s duty for post-16 transport is to make the arrangements it considers necessary to facilitate attendance. The Council has decided the PTB meets this requirement. The fact a parent might say they cannot help or that the PTB offered is not sufficient does not mean the Council needs to provide the transport requested. It instead needs to consider all the information presented and make a decision.
15. The case documents show that Mr X had the opportunity to make representations and to provide evidence for the panel to consider. The weight the panel members gave to the evidence provided was a matter for their professional judgement.
16. Mr X disagrees with the panel’s decision, but there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the case to warrant us investigating.
17. Mr X says the Council was slow to reach a decision and that it did not provide interim transport. The injustice from any delay in reaching a decision is not significant enough to warrant us investigating – especially as it would not change the outcome. We also would not expect a council to provide the transport requested while considering an appeal. We would not therefore find fault if we considered this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman