Summary: Mr X complains about several issues concerning how the Council responded to his request for some post adoption support. He complains about several delays, the support proposed, advice given and the Council’s refusal to fund some of the family’s costs. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was fault with some delays and with not responding to Mr X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and his family. But we cannot question the merits of the professional assessment, or the proposed therapy that was commissioned from that assessment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s responses to his and his wife’s (Mrs X) request for post-adoption support for them and their daughter (whom I shall refer to as Y). He complains:
• the Council’s duty system took four days to respond to their request for help (and only after Mr X chased a response);
• the resulting referrals were delayed;
• the support plan the Council proposed was inadequate;
• the therapist told them to get Y a private assessment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD);
• they asked about the Council making a referral to a nationally recognised Clinic. Their social worker would not make a referral, causing further delay;
• the Council refused their request to refund some of the costs they incurred, including the cost of the ADHD assessment.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.

3. If there:
• has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy; (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
• was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr X;
• sent my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Assessment for adoption support

8. Adoptive families have a legal right to an assessment of adoption support needs from the local authority responsible for their post adoption support. The assessment covers a range of needs.
9. If the local authority decides to provide post-adoption support, it can deliver the support itself, or commission outside agencies such as registered adoption support agencies or NHS practitioners.

The Council’s Post Adoption Support procedure (2018)

10. The Council’s procedure notes:
• after a request for an adoption support assessment, the Council should draw up a draft support plan within 35 working days;
• it sends the assessment / draft plan to families for their comments;
• the procedure had a three yearly review date.

Adoption Support Fund

11. The Adoption Support Fund (ASF) is available to pay for services and training for adoptive parents. To access the fund, a local authority needs to do an assessment of an applicant’s adoption support needs. If the assessment shows these services would be beneficial, then the local authority can make an application to the fund.
12. The ASF has a cap on the costs for therapy. If specialist assessments are needed there is an extra allowance, with its own cap.
13. The ASF gives money to a local authority to provide a range of therapeutic services. But some things are not in the scope of the Fund. These include standalone assessments for single conditions, unless they are part of a wider specialist assessment, that results in a therapeutic support plan.

Regionalised Adoption Agencies

14. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 required all councils to become part of a Regionalised Adoption Agency (RAA). These are groups of councils which combine to provide adoption services. 
15. The Ombudsman’s view is each RAA delivers adoption services that would otherwise be an administrative function of a council. So any complaint against the RAA is a complaint against the relevant council (see paragraph 4).
16. Adoption South East (ASE) is a RAA covering four local authorities, including Surrey County Council.

Statutory children’s complaints procedure

17. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. It includes a right to an independent review. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. It makes clear a complaint about adoption support can be dealt with under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

What happened

Background

18. Y was born in 2017 and Mr and Mrs X received an Adoption Order for her in 2018. She started school in 2021. At school it became apparent that Y had additional educational needs and her behaviour deteriorated.

Mr X contacts the Council’s duty system

19. On 14 March 2022 Mr X contacted the Council’s duty system requesting an assessment of their adoption support needs, because of Y’s behaviour since starting school.
20. On 18 March Mr X telephoned the duty line, as the Council had not responded to his contact. He spoke to a Council officer. The officer made an appointment for an educational psychologist and social worker to speak to Mr and Mrs X on 16 June, about Y’s behavioural issues at school. It also put Mr and Mrs X on the waiting list for a post adoption support assessment.

The meeting with the psychologist and post adoption support assessment

21. Mr and Mrs X had their meeting with the educational psychologist on 16 June. The Council describes this meeting as a consultation. Mr X says their understanding was it would be an assessment. Mr X describes the meeting as unhelpful and unproductive, as the psychologist’s advice was mostly common-sense. The psychologist provided a report. Mr X complains it took over a month to get this report and it was “utterly useless”.
22. On 29 June the Council carried out a post adoption support assessment. The Council received the assessment report on 4 July. It sent it to Mr and Mrs X on 14 July.
23. Mr and Mrs X responded accepting the assessment and its recommendations and asked the social worker to commission the therapeutic help outlined in the report. This was for therapeutic life story work for Y and her parents with a psychologist/therapist from an outside organisation (which I shall refer to as Organisation 2), to lead that work.

The first meeting with the therapist and the support proposed

24. Mr and Mrs X had their first virtual meeting with the therapist (whom I shall refer to as Ms B) at the end of August 2022. Mr X’s view was this “put a new spin on what this support actually meant”. The therapist was proposing 28 virtual meetings, but no plan for the therapist to ever meet Y. Mr X says this was not the support that they had asked for. And the therapist told them to get a private ADHD assessment.

The request for a referral to a nationally recognised Clinic

25. After the meeting, Mr X emailed the social worker to advise they had met with Ms B. He said she had advised Y needed an ADHD assessment and they should arrange one. They had booked an assessment, costing £1700 and asked the social worker if that could be funded. Mr X also asked the social worker if she had heard about a named national Clinic (which I shall refer to as the Clinic). He advised he had contacted the Clinic and it had suggested it could help.
26. The social worker’s response advised she had discussed the possibility of funding the ADHD assessment with a manager. But, as the assessment was not for a specific therapeutic need, the ASF would not fund It (see paragraph 13). ADHD assessments were usually requested by GPs or children’s mental health services (CAMHS). The social worker acknowledged there was often a long waiting list for an NHS assessment. That was why Ms B had suggested a private assessment, if that was a viable option for Mr and Mrs X.
27. On 7 September, the Council sent Mr and Mrs X Organisation 2’s detailed outline of the work it would provide and its quote for that work. (The Council later said it had received the quote on 13 July). Mr X emailed the Council in response, to note his concerns about the scope of the proposed therapies. And that those therapies would use up a large part of the ASF funding pot, leaving no funds for an ADHD assessment.
28. The social worker referred Mr X’s concerns to a manager. The manager met Mr X in a virtual meeting at the end of September. Following this meeting, the manager agreed to try to make the referral to the Clinic (see paragraph 25). But, as this was a change in the support plan, the Council first needed to make an updated application to the ASF. The ASF did not make a decision, agreeing the funding, until mid-December 2023.
29. The Council then made a referral to the Clinic. Its response advised its next available appointment was not until the new financial year (ie after April 2023).
30. In early January 2023 the Council sent Mr X the Clinic’s response. It also noted that this meant it would need to make a new ASF application (as the therapy would be in the new financial year, so the December agreement would not be valid).
31. Mr X emailed in response. He says that email went unanswered, so he followed it up later in the month. The Council responded with an invite for a virtual meeting. Mr X and his wife attended the virtual meeting, but the Council officer did not. The Council says it had sent Mr X an email advising its officer would not be able to attend the meeting.
32. In mid-February the Council’s manager contacted Mr X advising she was returning to work after an unexpected absence. She suggested they meet to catch up as funding was approved. Mr X responded about a month later.
33. The Clinic completed its assessment in May 2023. It provided a diagnosis for Y and proposed treatments and interventions.
34. Mr X complained to the Council about the way it handled their request for post adoption support. It responded through its corporate complaints procedure. It:
• apologised for not responding to Mr X’s contact to the duty team. It noted a service improvement which meant in future it would promptly acknowledge and action contacts;
• accepted a delay in allocating Mr X’s case for an assessment of adoption support needs. It acknowledged he waited for over three months to receive the assessment and that was longer than it would wish. It explained this was due to the high demand for its post-adoption assessments.
• noted that Mr X’s initial enquiry focused on Y’s challenges at school. And that was why it booked a psychologist consultation. It apologised it had not made clear at the time there was no expectation the psychologist would assess Y;
• advised that, because of Mr X’s complaint, it was revising the process for referring families for work with its psychologists. The aim of the review was to ensure families and the service had a shared understanding of the process and what it could deliver;
• accepted a delay of around four working days, in July, in sending Mr and Mrs X a copy of the post-adoption support assessment;
• after the new ASF application, there was no further action for its officer to take until ASF responded. That was why it did not allocate a new officer, when she was unexpectedly off work. But it acknowledged “…the lack of communication was not helpful”;
• did not agree to Mr X’s request for reimbursement of the private ADHD assessment costs. Its view remained such assessments were the responsibility of the NHS;
• noted Mr X and Mrs X had discussed ADHD with Ms B at an initial consultation meeting. She had offered guidance on how to obtain an assessment privately if Mr and Mrs X did not wish to go through the NHS. It said it was not Ms B’s intent to say Mr and Mrs X must get a private assessment.
35. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s complaint response, so he complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:
• ASE had a local provider list from which it matched skills and experience to need;
• the therapist it commissioned was experienced in working with looked after and adopted children, including children with underlying issues such as those which Y was subsequently diagnosed with. So its view remained she was a suitable provider;
• it confirmed it had delayed sharing the detailed description of the work and costs with Mr X; so acknowledged this came as a surprise to the family. In future it would ensure families had the detailed costs before it made an application to the ASF;
• by September Y had an ADHD diagnosis and the family were clear they only wished to work with the Clinic. So it agreed a referral “…in order to try to move things forwards and having noted that by this time the therapist no longer felt it appropriate to remain involved”.
• it accepted the Clinic could complete specialist assessments. But it was a national service and often oversubscribed. And it only referred to the Clinic in “exceptional circumstances, and by agreement of ASE’s Head of Adoption Support”. So it was not surprising the social worker was not aware of the Clinic, although her manager was.
• a different council handled complaints and feedback about ASE on behalf of all the councils that were part of the RAA. Mr X’s was the first complaint since the handover. The Council acknowledged a lack of clarity in this handover, which was why Mr X’s complaint was not escalated through the statutory children’s complaint procedure.

Was there fault by the Council?

36. My decision is there were the following faults by the Council/ASE acting on its behalf:
• not responding to Mr X’s initial call to the Council’s duty team;
• that it had not made clear the psychologist meeting was a consultation, not an assessment;
• a delay producing the draft assessment report. The Council’s procedure says it should draw up a draft support plan within 35 working days. Taking Mr X’s initial call as the starting point, ASE/the Council should have written its draft plan by around the end of April. The Council says it received the report on 4 July. So that is a delay or around 10 weeks;
• a delay of around four days in sending the report to Mr and Mrs X;
• a delay in providing Mr X with a detailed breakdown of the scope and cost of Organisation 2’s therapeutic work;
• not considering Mr X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
37. The Council has also missed reviewing its post adoption support procedure within the three years it set itself. As there have been significant changes during that period (ie the move to RAAs) my decision is that was fault.
38. My decision is there is no evidence of fault regarding:
• the recommendation for the therapy sessions in the Council’s initial assessment. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of the professional judgement of support needs, where, as here, the Council was seeking to meet the presenting need. I note that initially Mr and Mrs X agreed with the proposals;
• progressing the referral to the Clinic. The social worker referred Mr X’s concerns about the proposed therapy to her manager, who met Mr and Mrs X. The Council then had to make a fresh funding application. It was not fault by the Council that led to delay after that application;
• the Council’s decision about the funding for the ADHD assessment. I agree it is for the NHS to commission such assessments. And the ASF will not fund standalone assessments, such as Mr X commissioned. Mr X had the option to await an NHS assessment. I understand (because of likely delays) why he did not want to do this. But I cannot say that it was the Council’s duty to step in to provide a service that the NHS is funded to provide.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

39. The delays do raise significant uncertainty about whether, but for the fault, Y might have earlier been referred to the Clinic. That uncertainty is an injustice to Mr and Mrs X and Y and demands a symbolic remedy.
40. The other faults will have added to Mr X’s sense of frustration:
• the lack of clarity about what the meeting with the psychologist was intended to deliver;
• not progressing the complaint through the statutory procedure. The complaint would have benefited from a thorough investigation and analysis of the events. The final stage (an independent review panel) would have given Mr X the option of independent scrutiny of the outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it re-mains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of ASE, I have made recommendations to the Council.
42. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council:
• apologise to Mr X for the avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble caused by the delay. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology;
• make Mr and Mrs X a symbolic financial payment of £400 to recognise the uncertainty and distress caused by these faults.
43. I also recommended that, within three months of the date of this decision, the Council reviews its post adoption support procedure.
44. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I uphold this complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman