The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about home to school transport issues. We are unlikely to find she needs a remedy for any injustice caused directly by Council fault.
The complaint
Ms X complains about issues with the home to school transport for her child Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X; the Council’s reply to her pre action protocol letter which it provided; and our remedies’ guidance note.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Y has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) which names School Q. The Council accepts it has a duty to provide Y with home to school transport.
Ms X says the Council failed to consult with parents when changing transport arrangements. The Council changed the provider for the academic year 2023/24. It says it told parents two weeks before the term started. Ms X then moved home and notified the Council of this change in mid October. The Council accepts there was a short delay in setting up a new transport arrangement, but it was in place by early November and there had been a two week half term break in between.
The Council’s duty is to provide the transport. It does not have to agree this with the parents. It is unlikely we will find significant fault on either of these changes.
Ms X says that shortly after the new arrangement started in early November, Y had an incident. The cause and the extent of this is not agreed. Ms X’s account and that the Council has been provided with by the transport company and the school differ. Ms X lost trust in the transport provider and decided to transport Y herself to school. She complained and appealed to the Council.
By the end of January, the Council had offered to pay for the mileage costs Ms X had incurred and proposed a personal transport budget rather than it providing transport direct. This gives Ms X the power to choose how, and who, transports Y.
It is unlikely our investigation could achieve more. The delay between the arrangements breaking down and the Council agreeing to reimburse costs and a new arrangement is not comparatively significant enough to justify an investigation. Ms X says she has incurred legal costs as she chose to employ a solicitor to issue a pre - action protocol letter. We are unlikely to consider that a reasonably foreseeable cost incurred as a direct result of Council fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault causing a direct injustice requiring a remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman