Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to provide her children with separate school transport from home to school. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to provide her children with separate school transport from home to school. She says the children currently share a taxi with another child who has hurt them.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council provides Mrs X’s children with shared school transport. Mrs X wants the Council to provide her children with their own separate transport, but the Council declined.
6. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault as the Council did not properly consider all relevant information during its consideration of Mrs X’s appeal. In particular:
1. The panel noted in its decision that it had noted the travel time to school and length of time in the vehicle but was satisfied it was reasonable and complied with the Department of Education (DoE) guidance. The Council’s policy notes at paragraph 7.7. that travel times for children will meet the guidance from central government, which is generally no more than 75 minutes for secondary school children. However, Mrs X provided information that the journey time for her children in the taxi was anywhere between 75-90 minutes. Therefore, the upper end of this range is outside the journey time as set out in DoE guidance. While the Council may have good reasons for why it considers this to be a reasonable timeframe, these reasons have not been detailed in the panel’s decision. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied the Council has properly considered this point.
2. The Council did not properly considered the safety/safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs X in her appeal. The appeal documents noted the other child passenger had hurt her children. The documents showed the only consideration given to this concern was that the taxi driver had not seen anything. However, this does not automatically mean the incidents did not occur. There is no evidence the Council considered what risk mitigation could be put in place to prevent any future incidents, or rationale as to why the Council was satisfied this was not a safeguarding/safety risk to the children.
3. Further, Mrs X noted the other child’s singing was causing distress to her children. It is noted in the panel’s decision that the driver confirmed the child did sing, but that it was not loud. However, the driver’s perception of the loudness of the singing is not relevant as it is about the impact of the actions on the children. It is noted in both children’s EHC plans that they are sensitive to noise, including raised voices. In particular, it is noted that one child has significant sensory processing difficulties, presents with very acute hearing, and shows a high level of distress in reaction to sounds. Therefore, given it is accepted the child does sing in the taxi, the Council should have considered how this impacts the children and whether the Council is satisfied it remains reasonable for the children to access the taxi.
4. Paragraph 7.1 of the Council’s transport policy notes that the most cost effective and appropriate means of travel will be used, including public buses, trains, contracted coaches, minibuses and taxis. It could also be by the payment of an allowance paid to a parent who will then arrange for transport independently. The Council did not explore this option during its appeal consideration. I am of the view this would have been a relevant consideration as the Council should turn its mind to all options. This is particularly because Mrs X had stated they had previously transported the children to school themselves but had to stop due to the cost and the Council’s refusal to pay these expenses.
7. I am satisfied the likely fault will have caused uncertainty as to whether the Council’s decision to refuse the appeal is correct.
8. We therefore asked the Council to remedy this by completing a new appeal and to ensure the panel considers the above points.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision statement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman