Croydon Council failed family says Ombudsman
Archived press release
Date Published: 24/09/09
The Council failed to recognise a family’s needs over a period of four years.
London Borough of Croydon failed to recognise a family’s needs over a period of four years, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. In his report, issued today (24 September 2009) he says “The failures here had significant consequences for the health, happiness and wellbeing of the whole family as well as for [the two children]’s development at this important stage of their lives”, and recommends the Council to pay £20,000 compensation.
‘Mr and Mrs Oakham’ (not their real names for legal reasons) have a son, ‘William’, who has Asperger’s Syndrome and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Mr and Mrs Oakham sought assistance from the Council’s social services department three times from June 2004 onwards, because of William’s aggressive behaviour toward his sibling, ‘Alice’, who was found to be self-harming, and toward his parents who needed respite care.
Mr and Mrs Oakham identified educational provision with a residential element that they believed would meet both William’s social and educational needs. This would provide the family with respite and enable Alice to recover and respond to treatment, while maintaining William’s place in the family and preventing its collapse.
William and Alice were put on the Child Protection Register in April 2006 because it was feared they may present a danger to one another.
In response to the family’s referrals, the Council’s social services and educational departments assessed William’s needs, but they did so against separate criteria and did not consider the wider impact of his behaviour, needs and provision on the wider family, particularly his sister Alice.
The Ombudsman says: “It seems to me that education and social care professionals did not work together effectively, either with one another or with health care officials …, to ensure that not only William’s needs but those of his parents and sibling were met.”
The professionals involved with William, Alice and Mr and Mrs Oakham between 2004 and 2008 all concluded that the family would benefit from William receiving care away from the family home, but the Council did not provide this and the family felt it necessary to move out of the area.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s failure to identify, recognise and provide for the needs of the whole family was maladministration. But for that maladministration, the family’s needs could have been met through a residential placement for William.
The Ombudsman recommended the Council to:
- apologise to Mr and Mrs Oakham;
- pay them £20,000; and
- review its administrative arrangements to prevent a recurrence of the maladministration.
The Council has agreed to this and has met with Mr and Mrs Oakham to discuss outstanding issues.
Report ref no 07B04696 and one other