The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s poor communication when communicating its decision to change his son’s home to school transport arrangements. We find the Council was at fault for poor communication and failing to respond to Mr X. This caused him significant stress and his son was not able to attend school. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s poor communication when communicating its decision to change his son’s home to school transport arrangements. He said the Council failed to respond to him. Mr X says as a result, his son was not able to attend school. This has caused him significant stress.
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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).
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 with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance The Education Act 1996 says councils have a duty to arrange free home to school transport for eligible children.
The Act defines eligible children as: children aged between eight and 16 years old who live more than 3 miles from their nearest suitable school; or children who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of health and safety issues related to their special educational needs or disability.
Best practice suggests that the maximum each way length of journey for a child of primary school age should be 45 minutes. For children with special education needs (SEN) and/or disabilities, journeys may be more complex and a shorter journey, although desirable, may not always be possible.
The Councils changes to its special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) transport The Council made changes to its SEND transport. The changes to a child’s transport could mean that they may: Have a different driver Take a new route to and from school Begin travelling with other pupils if they have not previously been assessed as needing to travel alone.
The Council said it has a statutory duty to provide transport for every eligible student, but because of a significant increase in demand for transport and the shortages of drivers it has had to make changes to meet its statutory duty.
What did happen?
Mr X’s son, B has special educational needs and uses the home to school SEND transport provided by the Council. Up until 11 February 2022, this journey had taken 45 minutes.
The Council said it sent Mr X a letter on 15 December 2021, informing him that changes to its SEND transport services may occur.
The Council wrote to Mr X on 14 February 2022. It said it had made arrangements for B’s home to school travel with effect from 21 February 2022. It said to contact its transport provider for details of journey times.
Mr X said the new arrangements commenced the week after he received the Council’s letter.
Mr X contacted the Council in the same month. He said the new arrangement significantly differed from the guidance, as his sons journey time would have been 80 minutes there and 80 minutes back. He said this would be overwhelming and stressful for B. He asked the Council to reconsider the change or offer an alternative arrangement. He said until a more suitable arrangement was made, he would take B to school.
The Council asked its transport provider in March 2022 if Mr X was still refusing transport and asked it to provide B’s journey times. The transport provider responded and said transport had been refused from the first day. It said Mr X had not been in touch since. It confirmed B would be picked up at 7:40am.
Mr X contacted the Council a further three times in March 2022 asking for a response. He said he was no longer able to take B to school and stated when he would be able to resume transporting B. He wanted the Council to reimburse his travel expenses.
Mr X told us because of him no longer being able to take B to school, B was not able to attend school for two months.
Mr X then complained to the Council. The Council responded the following month. It said it was unable to make changes to B’s transport. It also said it had not handled the planning of the new transport arrangements as well as it would have liked and it was conducting a review into the way it was planned.
Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked for it to be escalated.
The Council responded. It said it did not deem the journey time for B to be unreasonable and said it would take approximately one hour each way.
Mr X told us B’s school contacted the Council about the travel arrangements. The school told Mr X he had been incorrectly told B would be picked up by the Council’s transport provider at 7:40am. The correct pick-up time was 8am.
Mr X asked the Council in May 2022 to reinstate B’s transport arrangements. This was because Mr X said the correct pick-up time of 8am was reasonable. This was agreed by the Council.
Analysis Mr X told us the Council made him aware of changes to the transport arrangement a week before it changed. He said he was unaware of who was collecting his son until three days prior to him returning to school. The Council told us the letter it issued to Mr X in February 2022 said arrangements had been made with effect from 21 February 2022. The letter included details of the transport provider.
Mr X told the Council in February the transport times communicated to him were not suitable for his son. He told them because of this he would take him to school. But in March, he was no longer able to. Mr X told the Council, because of this, B was not able to attend school. The Council failed to respond to him. The guidance says that best practice suggests that journey times for a child of primary school age is 45 minutes. It says for children with SEN and/or disabilities, journey times may be more complex and a shorter journey time, although desirable, may not always be possible. The travel times initially communicated to Mr X were significantly over this.
When Mr X told the Council it was not suitable, the Council should have discussed the issues with him. It would have been open to the Council to try and resolve this. However, it did not respond to his emails and this meant B missed out on his education for two months. This is fault.
Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of communication. The Council was aware in February 2021 of Mr X’s concerns about the new journey times and it failed to respond to his emails. Mr X was told conflicting information on what time B would be picked up by the transport provider. The correct time was provided to him when B’s school contacted the Council. This is fault. Had the Council communicated its decision more clearly to Mr X he would have continued to let B use the transport service. This meant that Mr X spent unnecessary time and trouble in contacting the Council. This caused him significant stress.
Mr X told us he spent time and money taking B to school. He said he requested the Council reimburse his travel expenses but it refused to. Once the correct travel times were established Mr X accepted the transport. If the Council had not miscommunicated its decision and responded to Mr X’s emails he would not have had to take his son to school and therefore would not have the additional travel expenses. This is fault causing injustice.
In acknowledgement of missed education, we recommend a payment per school month. I consider an appropriate figure in this case to be £300 per month between March and May 2022 when the Council became aware B was not attending school. In determining this, I have taken into account that B attended a specialist placement and required support throughout the day.
Agreed actions
To address the injustice caused by fault, within one month of the date of my final decision the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Mr X and B.
Pay Mr X £200 for the unnecessary time and trouble he spent contacting the Council.
Reimburse Mr X for the travel expenses.
Pay Mr X £600 for the educational benefit of B, to recognise the impact of its failings on B’s education.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman