Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about shared home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council decided a shared taxi was appropriate. We will not investigate the Council’s communication about the matter because an investigation is unlikely to add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council added another passenger to her child (Y)’s taxi transport without informing her. She is concerned about Y’s safety and that sharing the taxi is stressful for Y. Mrs X wants the Council to improve its communication and review the transport arrangement by properly considering Y’s needs.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s child, Y travels to a specialist school in a taxi provided by the Council. Prior to her complaint, Mrs X said Y travelled alone in the taxi. Y told her the driver said another child would be joining them in the taxi.
8. Mrs X complained about the lack of communication from the Council about the matter. She was concerned for Y’s safety because he has complex needs and feels like the Council ignored them. The other child sits in the front passenger seat and has music on in the taxi which Mrs X said is stressful for Y.
9. The Council said it had consulted risk assessments for both Y and the other passenger. It decided based on the information it was suitable for them to share a taxi. It explained that several factors impact the seating arrangements and does not mean it is unsafe for children to share a taxi.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to add another passenger to Y’s transport. Y’s risk assessment was up to date, it properly considered his needs and confirmed with the transport provider that no issues have occurred since the shared arrangement started. Where there is no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome.
11. The Council also told Mrs X it would discuss any concerns she has about the risk assessment and it would consider any information she could provide about any change in Y’s needs or circumstances.
12. The Council accepted it should have communicated better about the shared arrangement in Y’s taxi transport. It acknowledged the concern and uncertainty caused to Mrs X and Y. It apologised for not informing Mrs X directly about the change. The Council said it will remind officers about the importance of communicating significant changes with families, especially those with additional needs. I am satisfied with the actions the Council proposed to take and an investigation is unlikely to add to its response or achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman