Kent County Council (08 005 202)
Children and family services Maladministration causing injustice
18 May 2009
Kent County Council failed to assess and adequately meet the needs of a family with two children with learning difficulties. The Ombudsman said: “The failure to carry out regular reviews or to assess the needs of the family as a whole meant that, whilst Mrs Carter’s individual requests for help were never ignored, the Council’s response was piecemeal rather than comprehensive.” He added that the failure appeared to be systemic rather than specific to this family.
Mr and Mrs Carter (none of the names used are real for legal reasons) have three children, two of whom have learning difficulties as a result of which they are ‘children in need’. Mrs Carter complained that the Council failed to assess her family’s needs properly, resulting in them not receiving the level of support they require. Her complaint mainly related to her youngest son Michael who was severely autistic and had ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder). It also concerned her middle son Peter, who had Asperger’s Syndrome, her eldest son and her husband who had to take periods of unpaid leave to look after the family.
The Ombudsman found that the Council failed in its statutory duty to make direct payments available for overnight respite care. The Council also failed to carry out regular reviews of children in need. Consequently there was a delay in assessing the needs of Mrs Carter’s family that, coupled with the failure to make direct payments available for overnight respite care, meant her son Michael missed out on one night a week of overnight respite care for a period of eight months, and seven hours of daytime respite care a week for three months. The Ombudsman accepted that the Council was, albeit belatedly, taking steps to bring its policy on direct payments into line with its statutory duty. But he also found that the faults identified amount to maladministration.
Remedy
In order to remedy the faults identified, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay Mrs Carter the value of the direct payments she had missed. This was likely to be in the region of £12,000. The Council should apologise to Mrs Carter for the failure to support her family, and pay her a further £500 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. Given that the failure to carry out regular reviews of children in need appears to be systemic, rather than specific to the Carter family, the Council should also take steps to ensure that such reviews are carried out in line with the Council’s procedures in future, and that monitoring is put in place to ensure that this continues to be done.
LGO satisfied with Council's response: 6 October 2009
Date Updated: 10/12/09