The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs Y complained about failures and delays by the Council in arranging her daughter, Ms Z’s college placement and transport to and from college. as set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing delays, in the period from 5 September to 7 October. We have also found fault by the Council in the period from 10 October to 7 December in its communications about the transport requirements. We have not found this fault caused a further delay with Ms Z’s transport. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice these faults caused by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect her distress and frustration, and a payment to recognise the impact on Ms Z of the education she missed from September to October, together with a service improvement.
The complaint
I am calling the complainant Ms Z. This complaint has been brought on her behalf by her mother, who I am calling Mrs Y.
Ms Z is a young person with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and complex health needs. Mrs Y complains about delays by the Council in arranging Ms Z’s college placement and transport to and from college. She says the Council failed to: arrange the placement in time for the start of term on 5 September 2022; and put in place suitable home to school transport until 8 December 2022.
Mrs Y says, because of these failures, Ms Z missed nearly a whole term of education, Special Educational Needs (SEN) support and therapy. This affected Ms Z’s well-being. Mrs Y and her family had increased caring responsibilities for Ms Z while she was at home instead of college. Mrs Y was caused upset and had to spend time contacting the Council about Ms Z’s transport arrangements. She had to instruct solicitors to resolve the transport issues.
Mrs Y wants the Council to provide catch up sessions for the therapy Ms Z missed while she was unable to attend college and apologise for the impact on the family of the additional caring responsibilities. It should also reimburse her solicitors’ costs. And improve the way it works with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) regarding transport issues.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs Y, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mrs Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
I invited Mrs Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Council has duties to provide travel assistance to educational placements for certain groups of young people under the Education Act 1996.
The Council’s All Age Travel Assistance Policy sets out the availability of transport and travel assistance to children, young people and vulnerable adults within its area.
Ms Z’s EHC Plan included provision for a trained escort funded by the ICB to accompany her to and from college on transport provided by the Council in accordance with her care plan and EHC Plan. It said this was in line with the Council’s All Age Travel Assistance policy.
What happened I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
Complaint background Ms Z has an EHC Plan and complex health needs. As well as an EHC Plan, she also has a care plan from her local ICB, as the NHS organisation responsible for providing the health services needed to meet her health needs.
In July the Council decided to name College A as Ms Z’s new placement from September.
It issued the final EHC Plan on 2 September naming College A as Z’s placement. The Plan confirmed the ICB would fund a trained escort to accompany Ms Z on transport provided by the Council to and from her placement. Section J of the Plan, which set out details of the personal budget for Ms Z’s provision, referred to the escort being provided by care agency D.
September 2022: Ms Z is due to start her placement at College A Mrs Y completed the Council’s travel assistance request form on 4 September. She confirmed Ms Z’s medical requirements and that she needed transport to and from college from Monday to Friday, initially for afternoons only.
College A’s term started on 5 September. But, because of a delay by the Council in notifying the college, Ms Z’s place wasn’t available for her until 19 September.
Mrs Y’s contact with the ICB about Ms Z’s transport arrangements The ICB was responsible for securing suitable escorts, with the specified medication training, to accompany Ms Z on the vehicle arranged by the Council’s transport team. Mrs Y had the following contact with the ICB about this: 16 September: the ICB told Mrs Y: It had asked the college for details of Ms Z’s start and finish times; It had been in contact with care agencies B and C about providing care workers to support Ms Z on the transport to and from college. Care agency B could not provide this support until October, and care agency C would let them know if it had carers available; and The Council’s transport team had confirmed it could commission a vehicle for the travel to and from college.
22 September: Mrs Y advised ICB of Ms Z’s college start and finish times; and 26 September: ICB told Mrs Y the Council would arrange a taxi to take Ms Z to and from college and care agency B would provide her support on the transport.
October 2022: Mrs Y’s further contact with ICB On 4 October ICB told Mrs Y: It had a package of care which would enable Ms Z to attend College A. Care agency D would provide care workers, who were trained to give the medical assistance required, to support Ms Z on the transport. They could start as early as 10 October; and It asked how Mrs Y felt about this. It also said the only other option was to source two separate care packages and short-term transport, with the possibility this might have to be changed in the near future.
Mrs Y told the ICB she had some concerns about care agency D’s experience supporting young people. She asked the ICB to arrange for Ms Z’s transport support to be provided by care agency B instead.
On 10 October ICB told Mrs Y: Care agency C could not provide Ms Z’s transport support; It could arrange support with care agency D. It would also be able to provide this support when Ms Z started attending college full time; and It could discuss the possibility of sourcing another agency better placed to meet Ms Z’s health needs if this was Mrs Y’s preference.
Mrs Y said she wanted the ICB to source an alternative provider. She asked again about support by care agency B.
November 2022: Mrs Y’s contact with the Council about transport Ms Z’s transport was still not in place. Mrs Y raised her concerns about this with the Council.
In its response to her concerns the Council said: ICB had previously sourced a vehicle through the Council’s transport team together with support on the transport provided by care agency D. Mrs Y had declined this offer. The vehicle was not available now; It was waiting for her to confirm she had completed the travel assistance form, as requested; and ICB understood now Mrs Y intended to escort Ms Z on the transport.
Mrs Y told the Council she had withdrawn her initial offer to escort Ms Z on a short-term basis because of her other commitments. The Council then had a meeting with Mrs Y about the transport issues at which it was confirmed: Ms Z was not attending college because transport had not been arranged; The Council was trying to source a taxi company; and The request for support for Ms Z on the transport would be re-instated.
The Council then told Mrs Y it had a vehicle in place from 21 November 2022. But when Mrs Y asked about the escort arrangements, it said it had arranged a vehicle only as it thought she would be escorting Ms Z. It apologised and said it would cancel the vehicle until the support package was sourced.
December 2022: Mrs Y’s solicitors contact the Council Mrs Y’s solicitors wrote to the Council about the transport issues. They said it had failed to provide Ms Z’s school transport and deliver the provision set out in her EHC Plan.
Ms Z’s transport is put in place Mrs Y accepted the Council’s proposed arrangements for Ms Z’s transport to and from college. The transport – a taxi with care support for Ms Z provided by care agency D - was put in place from 8 December.
Mrs Y’s complaint to the Council Mrs Y complained to the Council about the delay in arranging Ms Z’s transport to college. She said the Council should: arrange catch up sessions for the 11 weeks of college Ms Z had missed; reimburse her solicitors costs. She’d had to instruct solicitors because she was concerned that, without their involvement, Ms Z would still not have transport for the start of the next term in January; and pay financial redress for the distress and anxiety caused and time.
The Council’s response The Council said, in response to Mrs Y’s complaint: It had offered suitable transport arrangements - a vehicle and suitable care package – on 10 October. Mrs Y had declined this offer and asked for an alternative provider more suited to Ms Z’s needs; Mrs Y then chose to accept the same arrangements in December; It accepted the delay in the start date and initial delay with the transport arrangements was its fault; Catch up sessions would be discussed at the next annual review; and It offered a payment of £150 for Mrs Y’s distress and time.
Mrs Y was not happy with this response and brought the complaint to us.
My view - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
The Council has accepted Ms Z’s start date at college was delayed from 5 September to 19 September because of its failure to notify the college of her placement in time. This was fault.
The Council has also accepted: It was its responsibility to arrange suitable transport for Ms Z to and from college, in accordance with the provision in her EHC Plan; It failed to arrange this transport in time for Ms Z’s delayed start date of 19 September; and Because of its fault Ms Z missed five weeks of education and SEN provision from 5 September to 7 October. It says suitable transport was arranged for Ms Z from 10 October.
Mrs Y does not agree the Council offered suitable transport from 10 October. She says she was still in discussion with the Council and ICB at this stage about a vehicle and Ms Z’s support on the transport and arrangements had not yet been agreed. Suitable transport was not in place for Ms Z until 8 December.
I have considered: The action the Council should take to remedy the injustice caused by its faults in the period from 5 September to 7 October; and Whether there was further fault by the Council regarding the arrangement of Ms Z’s transport in the period from 10 October to 8 December, and if so, the action it should take to remedy the injustice this caused.
Remedies for the injustice caused from 5 September to 7 October Because of the Council’s fault, Ms Z was unable to attend college and missed all her education and SEN provision during this period.
The Council offered to pay Mrs Y £150 for the distress this caused her. In my view, this is an appropriate amount to reflect the distress and frustration the delay caused Mrs Y in the five weeks from 5 September to 7 October.
But the Council did not offer any remedy payment for the impact on Ms Z of the loss of education. Although it said catch up sessions would be discussed at annual reviews, I have not seen any evidence of this.
Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we normally recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 a term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure is based on the circumstances of each case, to reflect the particular impact on that child or young person.
Ms Z lost all her education and SEN provision in the five-week period from 5 September to 7 October. I note she attended college on a part-time basis initially and have taken this into account. I consider the Council should make a remedy payment of £470 for the impact of Ms Z’s lost education provision for five weeks (based on £1,200 for a full term).
Was there further fault by the Council from 10 October to 7 December?
I don’t consider it was the Council’s fault Ms Z’s transport was not in place until 8 December. This is because, in my view: Mrs Y was offered suitable transport for Ms Z to and from college on 4 October and again on 10 October. The Council arranged a suitable vehicle and the ICB arranged suitable escorts. The ICB confirmed to Mrs Y the escorts, provided by care agency D, had the required medication training in accordance with the provision in Ms Z’s EHC Plan. Had this package been accepted, Ms Z’s transport would have been place from 10 October; It was Mrs Y’s decision to decline this transport package. I appreciate she wanted escorts provided by her preferred care agencies. But the ICB had already explained the difficulties in sourcing support from these agencies; and The request to explore support options with other care providers inevitably delayed the arrangement of Ms Z’s transport. I understand Mrs Y had to finally accept the support package with care agency D in December because escorts could not be provided by her preferred agencies.
I do, however, consider the Council failed in November to understand support for Ms Z was required as well as a vehicle, when Mrs Y had made this clear, and that she had already completed a travel assistance form. There also appears to have been a lack of clear communication between the Council’s transport team and the ICB. In my view these communication failures were fault, which caused unnecessary confusion.
I don’t consider this delayed the agreement of transport arrangements because of Mrs Y’s ongoing input about the care agency providing the support. But it caused Mrs Y further distress and frustration.
Mrs Y says she asked solicitors to write to the Council, because of her concern about the time it was taking to arrange Ms Z’s transport. But, for the reasons explained above, I don’t consider the Council is responsible for these costs.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mrs Y for its initial delays and failures in arranging Ms Z’s placement and transport in the period to 7 October and its communication failures in November. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this recommended apology; pay Mrs Y £250 to reflect the distress and frustration its failures caused her. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies; and pay Mrs Y a total of £470, as a remedy for Ms Z’s benefit, to recognise the injustice caused by the education and SEN she missed.
And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to: review its procedures for the way its transport team and the ICB work together when arranging transport in cases where both a vehicle and care support, or other joint input is required; and review and update its guidance to the transport team on working with the ICB and making transport offers in these cases. Or consider issuing guidance if this is not already in place.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman