The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed providing her daughter with home to school transport. We find the Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Miss B’s appeal for home to school transport. It was also at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s complaint about the matter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.
The complaint
Miss B complained the Council delayed providing her daughter (C) with home to school transport. She also says the Council delayed and failed to properly deal with her complaint about the matter.
Miss B says the matter has had a detrimental impact on C’s mental and physical health. She adds C missed months of education because of the Council’s failures.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Miss B. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislative and administrative background Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include: children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above); children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem; children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B) Transport appeals (at the time of the events in this complaint) Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process: Stage one: review by a senior officer. Within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision, a senior officer reviews the original decision and sends the parent a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review setting out the nature of the decision, how the review was conducted, what was taken into account, the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage two; and Stage two: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request for an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about appealing to us.
(Home to school travel and transport: statutory guidance July 2014, Part 5) The Council’s complaints procedure The Council aims to respond to stage one complaints within an average of 15 working days and stage two complaints within an average of 20 working days.
What happened This chronology includes an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
Miss B applied to the Council for home to school transport for C in April 2022. She said C could not walk to school because of her mobility issues. She also said she could not take C to school because of her health issues.
The Council wrote to Miss B and said C did not qualify for home to school transport because there was not enough evidence why she could not transport C to and from school.
Miss B emailed the Council with her appeal on 9 May. She said C could not use public transport because of her chronic pain and mobility issues. She said she did not own a car she could take C to school in, and she could not afford to pay for C to use taxis five days a week. She also said she suffered from her own serious health issues. She provided supporting documents from a mental health service and C’s school.
The Council wrote to Miss B in June and said her application did not meet the special educational needs and disability criteria. It told her to send an email if she wished to appeal its decision. Miss B emailed the Council at the end of June and said it had changed the reason for rejecting her application. She provided further details of C’s special educational needs. She said she wanted to appeal.
The Council wrote to Miss B at the end of July. It said C did not have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is a legal document which describes a young person’s special educational needs and the support they need. Miss B emailed the Council and asked if all children must have an EHC Plan to access home to school transport. She also asked how the appeals process worked.
Miss B complained to the Council at the beginning of September. She said she was unhappy with its decision not to offer C home to school transport and for its delay dealing with her appeal. She said C could not attend school without home to school transport. She provided further supporting documents to highlight C’s special educational needs. The Council wrote to Miss B and explained when parents are unhappy about a home to school transport decision, they can ask for a stage one senior officer review. It said a senior officer would deal with the matter as an appeal rather than a formal complaint.
Miss B responded to the Council and said she still wanted it to deal with the matter as a formal complaint. The Council wrote to Miss B in October and agreed to respond to her complaint separately from her appeal.
A senior officer reviewed Miss B’s appeal at stage one on 19 October. He decided C was eligible for home to school transport via a personal budget. He apologised for the Council’s delay in considering her appeal. C started receiving home to school transport at the end of October.
Miss B emailed the Council and said she had to pay for taxis so C could attend school on some days. She said its delay dealing with her appeal caused her financial loss. The Council agreed to refund the taxi fares in November.
Miss B emailed the Council in December and asked when it would respond to her complaint. The Council responded on 6 December and said it would provide a response to her complaint by the end of the week.
Miss B emailed the Council in February 2023 and said it had failed to respond to her complaint. She said she wanted it to consider compensation because of the impact its failures had on C’s education.
The Council issued its stage one response to Miss B’s complaint in May. It said it delayed dealing with her stage one appeal. It apologised for this. It said it could not provide compensation for its delay.
Miss B asked the Council to review its response in May. She said its delay meant C had missed a lot of education as she could not attend school. She provided further information in June and said C had missed 20 to 25 weeks of school. The headteacher from C’s school provided a supporting letter and said C had to drop some GCSE subjects because of her difficulties attending school.
Miss B chased the Council for responses to her complaint in August. She said she wanted it to pay her £6,840 which was the cost of what a private tutor would have been from May to October 2022. The Council acknowledged Miss B’s complaint and said it hoped to respond by 21 September.
Miss B chased the Council for a response on 1 October. The Council responded on 4 October and said it would respond the following week.
After further chasing, the Council responded to Miss B’s complaint in mid-November. It said the transport team was unaware C was not attending school. It said she had provided no evidence she paid for a private tutor while she was waiting for it to deal with her stage one appeal. It said if she had this information, she could send it and it would consider it further.
Analysis Miss B sent her appeal to the Council’s decision on her application on 9 May 2022. The Council should have completed a stage one review by a senior officer within 20 working days. The Council failed to do this. It instead sent Miss B a letter at the end of June to say it was rejecting her application. This was not a stage one review. The Council also provided Miss B with a different reason to what it initially provided on why it was rejecting her application. When Miss B emailed the Council in response, it repeated the same process and sent her another letter rejecting her application rather than completing a stage one review. It also provided a different reason why C did not qualify for home to school transport. The Council eventually completed a stage one review, but it was in October 2022. This is a significant delay.
I am also concerned one reason the Council provided for rejecting Miss B’s application is because C does not have an EHC Plan. The statutory guidance says eligible children include those who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem. Therefore, it is clear there are a range of things councils must consider. A child having an EHC Plan does not automatically mean a council will provide home to school transport.
The Council’s faults have caused Miss B frustration and upset. She was put to the inconvenience of sending further appeals and repeatedly contacting the Council to understand why it was not following the process set out in the statutory guidance. The Council continually changing the reason for rejecting her application also caused her confusion.
The Council’s faults have also caused C a significant injustice. If it had acted without fault, it would have completed the stage one review by 6 June 2022. It is more likely than not it would have decided C was eligible for home to school transport, as this is what it eventually decided in October 2022. Therefore, C would have had access to the transport, and she would have been able to attend school regularly. Miss B explained she could only afford to send C to school in a taxi occasionally. Therefore, she missed a significant amount of education. C was studying for her GCSEs and so it was an important phase in her education. The headteacher of the school explained C had to drop some GCSE subjects because she was not attending regularly. He also explained C’s social anxiety increased because she could not leave the house. C is now doing an extra year of college because of the education she missed. The Council therefore needs to make a payment to recognise the impact its faults have had on C’s education.
The Council also significantly delayed dealing with Miss B’s complaint. It should have issued its stage one response within 15 working days. It instead took eight months. Miss B referred her complaint to stage two in May 2023. The Council should have issued its stage two response within 20 working days. Due to an internal delay in referring Miss B’s complaint to the complaints department, the Council did not provide its stage two response until November 2023. Miss B was put to time and trouble chasing the Council for responses. The Council also failed to keep Miss B properly updated while she was waiting for its responses, and it failed to meet the revised timescales it set at both stages of the process. This caused her further frustration and upset.
Agreed action
To address the injustice caused by fault, by 8 July 2024 the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Miss B and C for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this statement.
Pay Miss B £350 to reflect her time and trouble, frustration, upset and inconvenience.
Pay Miss B £1,800 for C’s missed education from June to October 2022. We suggest Miss B uses this payment for C’s educational benefit.
By 5 August 2024 the Council has agreed to issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware they must process a home to school transport appeal in line with the timescales and criteria set out in the statutory guidance.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss B and C an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman