Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Mr X’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X avoidable distress caused by the delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:
• the Council delayed amending his son’s EHC Plan after a Tribunal in May 2021. He said when the Council issued the final Plan it was not in line with the judgement.
• the Council did not re-activate his son’s transport allowance. He said the Council said his son was entitled to allowance but kept changing the mileage amount and has not reimbursed him.
• the Council failed to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

Education Act

7. Section 508B of the Education Act 1996 deals with the duty on local authorities to make such travel arrangements as they consider necessary to facilitate attendance at school for eligible children.

Home to school/college transport policy

8. Personal Travel Budgets (PTBs) enable families to arrange their child’s home to school travel arrangements in a way that suits their circumstances. It is paid in arrears via BACs payment once the child’s school has confirmed attendance. The PTB is calculated based on the distance between home and school for the day the child attends school. The Council pays 40p per mile and pay for four journeys per today to and from school.

What happened

9. Mr X’s son, Y has Special Education Need (SEN). He has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Following a tribunal, the court made a judgement in June 2021 for amendments to Y’s EHC Plan.

EHC Plan delays

10. Mr X said the Plan was supposed to be amended and provided to Mr X within a 5-week period but he did not receive it until September. The Council explained the delay was due to human error involving the removal of the case from a spreadsheet. This meant there were no checks in place to ensure action had been taken. The Council said, as a direct result of Mr X’s complaint, it has now amended its procedures to keep all cases on a main tracker spreadsheet until all actions have been completed.
11. Mr X said the Council eventually provided an unamended Final EHC Plan in September. The Council said the only change which was not made as initially ordered by the tribunal was the description of the named school. It was described as non-maintained when it is a maintained school. The Council said it sought further clarification from the court which caused further delay in issuing the final plan.
12. Mr X said he complained about the delays and error to the Council as the delay of the Plan and the incorrect school description caused him uncertainty and stress. He said he wanted everything in black and white before Y went back to school.
13. The Council registered Mr X’s complaint in February 2022 and responded in March. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 in April, but the Council told him it was still preparing a further response to the stage 1 response. In June, the Council wrote to Mr X to offer to escalate his complaint to stage 2.

Transport allowance

14. Mr X said that Y had received a transport allowance since he started at his school in 2019. Mr X said this stopped in March 2020 when Covid-19 hit. Mr X said that he has not received any transport budget since then. He said the Council told him in April 2022 that Y was entitled to a transport budget. Mr X said he disagreed with the calculations as they keep changing. He said he has not signed an agreement and has not therefore claimed any transport costs.
15. The Council said that mileage claims are currently calculated at 40p per mile. The mileage for Mr X’s claim was calculated at 3.1 miles each journey. The Council said the total amount payable would be £4.96 per day but it would round it up to £5.00 per day.
16. The Council said that the home to school transport service does not issue agreements for customers to sign, only mileage claims. Mr X has not submitted any claim forms and the Council said he has refused to give the Council his bank details.
17. Mr X said the mileage claim form contained too much personal information and could put him at risk of fraud.

My findings

EHC Plan delays

18. The Council has acknowledged it delayed issuing Y’s EHC Plan. It has identified the reasons for the delays and has put procedures in place to prevent this happening again.
19. The delays meant that Mr X did not receive his son’s finalised EHC Plan until September when he was going back to school. Although the delays did not cause Y to miss out on any provision, they caused Mr X stress and worry. This was made worse by Mr X’s autism.
20. The Council was at fault for the delays in issuing Y’s final Plan. This caused Mr X an injustice.

Transport allowance

21. The Council has never disputed that Y is eligible for school travel assistance in the form of a Personal Travel Budget (PTB).
22. The Council’s policy states it will pay 40p per mile for 4 journeys to and from school. I agree that Mr X lives 3.1 miles from the school Y attends. Therefore, the Council’s calculation of a total of £4.96, rounded up to £5.00, is correct.
23. There was no fault with how the Council calculated the mileage amount.
24. I understand Mr X’s reasons for not wanting to provide the Council with his bank details. However, this is the standard procedure for most Council’s reimbursing parents for school travel mileage. If Mr X wants to challenge the data risks, he could contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as this is out of our jurisdiction.

Complaint process

25. The Council did not initially escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 as it said it was in the process of adding further clarification to some of the issues Mr X raised at stage 1. This does not amount to fault however it would have been good practice for the Council to have kept Mr X informed of the process.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan.
2. Pay Mr X £200 for the distress the delays caused him.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Mr X’s son’s EHC Plan. This caused Mr X avoidable distress.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman