A mum from North London has been offered £1,650 after failures by the council meant her child with mobility issues had difficulty attending school.
The local authority has apologised and acknowledged it “should have done further enquiries” before refusing transport for the child.
An investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) determined that Brent Council was at fault for not taking the child’s mobility issues into account when assessing their need for school transport and found no evidence it had sent their mum, referred to in the report as Mrs X, a letter informing her of the decision.
Mrs X had made a complaint after being dissatisfied with the way the council handled her child’s special educational needs and disability (SEND), as well as her subsequent complaint. She said this impacted her child due to them missing out on their education, as well as causing her “unnecessary distress and frustration”, according to the report.
In 2023, Mrs X applied for school transport and asked Brent Council for an education, health and care plan (EHCP) assessment for her child, referred to in the report as B. The council initially said it would not carry out the assessment, however after Mrs X appealed the decision, the SEND tribunal ordered the council to complete it.
The EHCP assessment was ultimately carried out and the council decided to approve a plan for B, which was issued in January 2024. However, the application for transport was refused because the council claimed there was “no evidence of B’s limited mobility”, according to the report. The council argued that B could take the bus, which is free and would take 15 minutes to get to and from school.
The local authority later acknowledged that it “should have done further enquiries” to better inform its decision. Following a complaint by Mrs X, Brent Council offered her £1,650 to “reflect the impact” of B not being able to attend school and for “the distress” this caused. Mrs X has so far not accepted this offer.
The LGO found the council at fault for not sending Mrs X the transport decision letter, as well as for not getting more information to better inform its decision, however, the report added that it “cannot say what the decision would have been had it made those further enquiries”.
No further financial penalty was imposed on the council as the investigator found that the offer made by the council was a “suitable and appropriate financial remedy for the injustice caused” and it is now up to Mrs X whether or not to accept it.
A council spokesperson said: “As a council, we regret our unsatisfactory handling of Mrs X’s child’s educational needs. We have apologised to her for the distress and frustration she has experienced due to failures in our processes.
“We did not inform her of the outcome of her transport application in a timely way and caused her unnecessary uncertainty surrounding her child’s education.
“We have offered Mrs X financial compensation for the distress that she has suffered. Our processes are under review to ensure that what Mrs X experienced does not happen again.”
