Wiltshire County Council (06B06454)

Special educational needs & Children and family services

Maladministration causing injustice

17 April 2008

Wiltshire County Council mishandled the social care needs of a family, and failed to provide properly for one of their daughters’ special educational needs. The Ombudsman says “…education and social care professionals did not work together effectively with one another and with the health care professionals involved, to ensure that not only [the girl]’s needs, but those of her parents and siblings were met.” He adds “The failures here had significant consequences for the health, happiness and wellbeing of the whole family, as well as for [the girl]’s development at an important stage of her life.”

He recommends the Council to pay £10,000 compensation and review its arrangements to avoid any recurrence of these problems.

‘Mr and Mrs Taverner’ (not their real names for legal reasons) have three children. ‘Laura’ (also not her real name) is severely autistic with associated communication difficulties and has a statement of special educational needs. At an annual review in June 2005, the professionals present unanimously recommended that she should attend a residential school from the point of transfer to secondary education, due in September 2006, as her needs could not be met locally. At the time, her parents were appealing to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for that placement.

In November 2005 Laura’s social care needs and those of her family were assessed and a recommendation made that Laura’s needs should be met outside the home, in a setting where she would receive 24-hour supervision and care, with an educational programme integrated into her life both at school and outside. Four months later, when the parents enquired why this was not in place, the Council said that the recommendation should have been removed from the draft report before it was issued, but had not been. The Council considered that a support package already in place met Laura’s needs; but did not explain how the need for a 24-hour curriculum could be met without a residential school placement. No clear written policy was in place to support this view. A review of the core assessment was carried out which, while identifying unmet needs for respite care, made no additional provision above what was already in place.

Meanwhile Laura, who had transferred to a local secondary day school in September 2006, did not settle and from January 2007 refused to attend school. She remained at home until September 2007, at which point she obtained a place at a residential special school. In the meantime, the Council offered little further support and in particular, no offer of further respite care was made until May 2007. During this period Laura’s health and wellbeing, as well as that of her parents and siblings, suffered significant adverse effects.

The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s removal of a recommendation from a core assessment without full and proper consideration of the impact of that amendment, and its failure to ensure that the needs of Laura and her family were adequately met over a period of many months, together with the lack of a clear written policy that the parents could challenge through use of the statutory complaints procedure, was maladministration. But for the maladministration, the needs of Laura and her family would have been met either through a residential school placement or by some alternative form of provision.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council should:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs Taverner;
• pay them £10,000; and
• review its administrative arrangements to prevent a recurrence of the maladministration.

The Ombudsman is pleased to report that Laura is now happily settled at a residential school.

Date Updated: 16/01/09