 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Summaries of cases that concern more than one category of complaint appear under all relevant category headings Adult care services 11 case summaries - 3 NEW Mar-Apr 2008 Children and family services 3 case summaries - 1 NEW April 2008 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (04/C/17057) Further report (first report found maladministration causing injustice) Trafford Council’s rejection of an Ombudsman’s recommendation to waive the repayment of a housing grant acts against the legitimate interests of an elderly woman with mental health problems who it has wronged, said the Ombudsman. She had asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused, but in her second critical report she says “I am dismayed that it has responded in what I can only describe as a cavalier manner to the prejudice of a very vulnerable citizen.” In her first report, issued on 30 November 2006 following an independent and thoroughly researched investigation, the Ombudsman criticised the Council for not having ensured that the woman fully understood the terms and conditions of the housing renovation grant at the time she signed the application, and for officers advising councillors that the woman’s mental state was not relevant. She recommended that, in the unusual circumstances, it should exercise its discretion and waive the repayment of the grant. ‘Ms Walker’ complained on behalf of her mother, ‘Mrs Walker’ (not their real names) who suffered from severe mental illness over a long period. In spring 1996 Mrs Walker enquired about a renovation grant for her home. If someone who received a renovation grant sold or moved out of their property within a specified time period, the council could require partial repayment. Between the time when Mrs Walker first enquired about a grant and the time she applied for one, the time period when this rule applied was extended from three to five years. But no-one appears to have explained this to Mrs Walker who, when she signed the application in January 1998, was an in-patient in a psychiatric ward. In June 1998, the grant was approved. The result of this was that Ms Walker, who by then had power of attorney for her mother, arranged to sell the house in the erroneous belief that the old rules applied. Had those rules applied then the Council could have recovered none of the grant. Had the daughter known the truth she could have acted to delay the sale for another year, after which no recovery could have been made. In the event the grant conditions were breached and the Council insisted on a full repayment. The Council did agree to review its existing policy on the repayment of grants and to identify possible improvements, but it is now obliged to consider this further report. “I deplore the officers’ continued resistance to accepting my findings of fact, contrary to established case law.” said the Ombudsman, “I ask the Council to reconsider its position and waive the payment of this grant.” 15 May 2007 North Yorkshire County Council (05/C/13158) Maladministration causing injustice North Yorkshire County Council failed to properly consider the assessed needs of a woman who required mental health aftercare. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to consider whether its choice of care home for the woman would meet her need for frequent family contact, a key part of her assessment. She was also critical of the Council’s delay in making a decision about who could contribute to the cost of the home. ‘Mrs Trent’ (not her real name) needed aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (following compulsory detention for treatment) and became a resident in a care home. Her daughter, ‘Mrs Medway’ (not her real name) complained about the issues of payment for care, and whether the home selected by the Council could meet her mother’s assessed needs. The law and guidance on local authority responsibility for fully funding the costs of aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act was clear. However, there was no specific statutory provision, case law or guidance on whether someone needing Section 117 aftercare and wanting to go into a more expensive home can meet the difference between those costs and the costs that a council would incur for a home that could equally well meet assessed needs. The Council initially said that only a third party could meet the additional costs of a home chosen by the family for their mother. It then reviewed that decision and concluded that it would be reasonable for the mother to meet the difference in costs from her own resources. A home in the Council’s area had vacancies, and the Council said that this home could meet the mother’s needs. The Council therefore refused to pay any more than the amount of that home’s fees. Her care plan included frequent contact with family members. The home that the Council said could meet her needs was in a rural location and difficult for family members to reach. The Council now accepts that the home chosen by the family was appropriate, and it will meet the full costs. The Ombudsman found that the Council:
If the Council had properly considered Mrs Trent’s assessed needs and reviewed its decision about ‘top-up’ payments sooner, unnecessary distress to Mrs Medway would have been avoided. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to pay Mrs Medway £500. 24 July 2007 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05/C/11921) Maladministration causing injustice Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council failed in its legal duty to meet the needs of a disabled young woman. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay the young woman’s parents £1,000 per week for each week they had to care for her since August 2005, excluding weeks they have received respite care, plus £3,000 for distress, anxiety, and time and trouble taken in pursuing their complaint. ‘Mr and Mrs Kaye’ complained that the Council failed to meet the needs of their adult disabled daughter, ‘Daisy (not their real names). Daisy had been living at a centre partly funded by the Learning and Skills Council with the aim that this would provide a transition to her permanent adult placement. This transition placement finished in July 2005. The Council offered one permanent placement at an adult centre, which the family rejected. The Council did not reply to Mr and Mrs Kaye’s concerns about this centre, nor did it address their reasons for rejecting the centre. As no further offer was made, Mr and Mrs Kaye felt they had no choice but to care for their daughter in the family home. She remains there. Since September 2005 the Council has proposed a number of centres, none of which have been able to care for Daisy. The Ombudsman found maladministration as the Council failed to meet Daisy’s needs and:
The Council believed that it could have insisted on the one placement it offered in August 2005, but did not do so because it wanted to forge a good working relationship with the family. The family feel they have been blamed for the lack of long term provision. The Ombudsman’s view is that Daisy’s needs have not been met and that should have been the most important aim for the Council. The Ombudsman proposed that, as a remedy for the injustice, the Council:
26 July 2007 Poole Borough Council (06/B/7542) Maladministration causing injustice Poole Borough Council did not deal properly with the change in circumstances of a woman who was receiving mental health aftercare. The Ombudsman found that, when the woman was moved to a new nursing home out of the Council’s area so that she could be nearer her son, it did not conduct a proper assessment of her mental health to establish whether she still needed aftercare. As a result, her son paid over £33,000 in nursing home fees until her death. The late Mrs Arnold had a history of mental illness and had been detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 on several occasions. She was discharged on 11 January 2000 with a care package provided under section 117 of the Act. In November 2000, her husband, Mr F Arnold, who was his wife’s main carer, had a stroke and so was incapable of caring for his wife or himself. The Council placed Mrs Arnold in a nursing home and funded her care there. In December 2000, the couple’s son, Mr B Arnold, asked the Council to move both his parents to a home nearer his, in a different part of the country. The Council said that, as Mrs Arnold received section 117 aftercare, it would need to get legal advice. It decided that Mrs Arnold could move, but did not mention the effect that her discharge from the home would have on payment for her aftercare. Mr F Arnold died shortly after the move, and Mrs Arnold lived at the new nursing home until her death in April 2002; her son paid the fees. In March 2003, Mr B Arnold enquired about the way the section 117 aftercare order had been discharged. The Council decided that this was done correctly, although it could not provide evidence to substantiate its view. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to carry out a proper assessment of Mrs Arnold’s mental health needs to establish if section 117 aftercare was no longer required. It also failed to hold a multi-disciplinary meeting with the relevant professionals, the patient and her carer or nearest relative to review the care plan. As a result of these failures, Mr B Arnold had to bear the full cost of care for his mother until she died in April 2002. The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council compensates Mr B Arnold for the cost of his mother’s nursing home fees between 17 December 2000 and 17 April 2002 (£33,455.58), plus interest at the relevant county court rate. 5 September 2007 London Borough of Havering (06/A/10428) Maladministration causing injustice Failures by Havering Council meant that an elderly, disabled woman had to live in completely unsuitable accommodation for at least five years longer than necessary. The Ombudsman said that the Council failed to consider the woman’s housing needs and her human rights, and recommended it to pay £10,000 compensation. Sadly, the complainant died before the issue of the Ombudsman’s report, so the compensation should be paid to her daughter. ‘Mrs Oak’ (not her real name) was 86 years old, partially sighted, deaf, and suffered from bronchial asthma and arthritis in all major joints. She lived with her daughter and grand-daughter in a second-floor three-bedroom maisonette, which was reached from street level by three sets of 14 steps. There was no lift. She could not manage the stairs to reach the property or those within the maisonette to her bedroom and the only bathroom without assistance. Her daughter, the tenant, applied for a transfer for the family to a property with level access and asked the Council to award her additional priority due to Mrs Oak’s medical problems. Mrs Oak complained that the Council took too long to deal properly with the housing transfer application and, as a result, she had to live in completely unsuitable accommodation. In January 2003, a Council officer visited Mrs Oak to assess her housing needs, and reported that she was “practically a prisoner in the home”. The Ombudsman added: “That tragic, deplorable and wholly preventable circumstance did not improve in the intervening years.” The Ombudsman found that the Council had delayed in dealing properly with the transfer application and that Mrs Oak had had to live in unsuitable accommodation for at least five years longer than she should have. Sadly, between the issuing of the draft and this final report, Mrs Oak died. The Ombudsman also concluded that the Council neglected to consider Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which says that everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice. The Council’s recent offer of suitable accommodation addressed the family’s housing needs, but in addition, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
31 October 2007 Leeds City Council (05/C/13157) Maladministration causing injustice Leeds City Council’s faults meant that a seriously ill and profoundly disabled woman was confined to bed in one room of her house for two years longer than necessary. The Ombudsman criticised the Council’s failure recognise its legal duties to the woman and its handling of her disabled facilities grant (DFG) application, and recommended it to pay £6,605 compensation and review its administrative procedures. The Council accepted all the Ombudsman’s recommendations. A man (called ‘Mr E’ in the report) complained about the Council’s provision of assistance to his wife, who is profoundly disabled, in particular about its handling of their DFG application. The Ombudsman criticised the Council’s failure to recognise its duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and its failure to have any direct social work contact with the family for over 15 months. On the handling of the DFG, the Ombudsman found fault in that the Council:
As a result, for two years longer than necessary Mrs E was:
To remedy the injustice, the Council agreed to:
In March 2007 a suitable property was identified for Mr and Mrs E and the Council agreed to provide a prefabricated ‘pod’ extension with bedroom, toilet and bathroom. The works were due to be completed soon. Meanwhile the Council used DFG funding to widen the doors and other work in the present home allowing wheelchair access. The Council also set up an appeal panel to resolve disputes about adaptations, and invited Mr E to take part in meetings about improving services. The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council in handling Mr and Mrs E’s rehousing applications, but commented that, “It is some measure of the extreme pressure on social housing, especially properties adapted to be wheelchair accessible, that all the higher priority cases were in even more difficult situations than the complainant and his wife and that allocations had been properly made to applicants with higher priority.” 20 November 2007 Bath & North East Somerset Council (06/B/16774) Maladministration causing injustice Bath and North East Somerset Council decided that a woman who had been detained in hospital for her mental health no longer needed aftercare - but its criteria for making that decision were “seriously flawed”. The Ombudsman said “the practical effect of the Council’s criteria is to remove long term nursing or residential home accommodation from the definition of aftercare services”, and this would allow the Council to “…avoid its public responsibilities under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.” ‘Mrs Fletcher’ (not her real name) was discharged from hospital following a period of detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Initially the Council funded her aftercare in a residential care home under Section 117 of the Act. But, following a review of her case, the Council determined that Mrs Fletcher no longer needed aftercare and so could be discharged from Section 117. The Ombudsman found that the discharge criteria applied by the Council were seriously flawed and its decision about Mrs Fletcher’s continuing need for aftercare was, therefore, unsafe. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to:
12 December 2007 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05/C/11921) Further report: first report found maladministration causing injustice Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council did not comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay appropriate compensation for its failure to meet the needs of a young disabled woman. The Council accepted there had been shortcomings and offered to pay £10,000 compensation, but the Ombudsman considered this was insufficient. She said “I am disappointed by the Council’s response and its unwillingness to recognise that the payment I recommended … reflected the payments that it should have made for [the young woman’s] care over the period.” The Ombudsman recommended a payment to the young woman’s parents of £1,000 for each week they have had to care for her since August 2005, excluding weeks they have received respite care, plus £3,000 for distress, anxiety, and the time and trouble they have taken in pursuing their complaint. The Council calculated this would cost it £100,000. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman published a further (second) report in which she repeated her recommendations, and hoped that the Council would now implement them in full. In July 2007, the Ombudsman upheld the complaint made by ‘Mr and Mrs Kaye’ (not their real names) that the Council had failed to meet the needs of their adult disabled daughter. In particular it:
The Council accepted two of the Ombudsman’s other recommendations: to undertake an independent professional review of current and future plans to ensure that they met Miss Kaye’s needs, and to produce a clear plan for her to move to a long term placement capable of meeting her assessed needs. However, it did not agree to a recommendation that it should report to Ombudsman at six monthly intervals on the progress it has made. The Ombudsman said this recommendation was included to ensure that the Kaye family did not suffer from any further unwarranted delays. 3 January 2008 Birmingham City Council (05/C/18474) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Birmingham City Council failed utterly in its duty towards ‘Miss D’, a deaf young woman with learning disabilities who was in its care. The Ombudsman said that the management and supervision of Miss D’s care by Birmingham Adult Learning Disability Service was “woefully inadequate”. Among the many examples of failure were its long delay in allocating a social worker, who was instructed to do reviews by telephone even though Miss D was deaf and had learning disabilities, and who only saw Miss D once and then without a signer to enable her to communicate. Miss D moved out of the Birmingham area with her childhood foster family, but she remained in Birmingham City Council’s care. When she was a teenager her first foster mother became unable to look after her and she was placed in her second foster home through a private fostering agency. When Miss D was 18 Birmingham’s Adult Learning Disability Service took over responsibility for her. Miss D remained with the second foster family and Birmingham continued to pay fees to them, even though they failed for eight years to register as a small home providing board and personal care to vulnerable adults. Miss D’s foster sister from her first foster family (called ‘Mrs B’ in the report) had become increasingly concerned about Miss D’s welfare. Among her concerns were that Miss D was:
Mrs B was so disturbed by the situation and Birmingham’s lack of response to her concerns that she involved MENCAP and the local Social Services. After eliciting no sensible response to the situation from Birmingham, at the end of 2004 the local Social Services initiated an Adult Protection Investigation. This led to Miss D moving to a new placement. Mrs B made formal complaints to Birmingham on behalf of Miss D. An Independent Investigating Officer and a Review Panel upheld almost all the complaints. The Panel said it was “…appalled at the poor practices and indifference which had permitted [Miss D] to be placed and remain in a placement that was questionable from the beginning” and “The evidence… is that Birmingham failed dismally to exercise adequate care and responsibility for more than 10 years…” The Council delayed for six months before writing to Mrs B with its response to the Review Panel’s findings. The response was inadequate and gave Mrs B every justification for believing that the Council did not take the issues seriously. Miss D settled in her new placement where she could communicate by signing and has regular contact with Mrs B. Only the care and vigilance of Mrs B has achieved this after more than five years of vigorous campaigning on Miss D’s behalf. She was ignored by Birmingham Social Services, has had good cause to doubt its ability to fulfil its obligations, and has felt, with justification, that she has been ‘fobbed-off’ with platitudes. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice in that the Council:
The Adult Learning Disability Service did not function as it should have done and was in crisis with two thirds of its posts vacant. The Ombudsman said “In these circumstances there is little point in criticising the staff and management.” She said “Birmingham must ask itself how such a crisis could develop and endure for so long and how the Council, as a corporate body and a Social Services authority, could fail so seriously to ensure adequate resourcing and performance of its services to highly vulnerable adults.” The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
4 March 2008 Buckinghamshire County Council (03/A/4618) NEW Maladministration causing injustice JOINT REPORT with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on complaints against Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust (ref HS-2608) The two Ombudsmen found that the level of care provided by Buckinghamshire County Council and Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust for a man with severe learning disabilities was unacceptable. They said that the care needs of ‘Frank’ (not his real name) were never properly assessed. In their joint report they also identified a number of significant failings in the level of care he received and in complaint handling. Frank’s parents complained to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the care their son received while he was living for two years in a residential care home run jointly by the County Council and the Health Trust. Frank needed one-to-one attention for about 95 per cent of his waking time. The Ombudsmen’s report said Frank and his parents had a right to expect that the Care Home would provide him with appropriate care in an environment conducive to his development, but sadly that did not happen. The Ombudsmen found that there had been fault by both the Council and the Health Trust that caused adverse effects for Frank and his family including acute anxiety and distress and some financial loss. The Ombudsmen recommended that the Council and the Health Trust pay £32,000 compensation. This was the first time that the Local Government Ombudsman and Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman had collaborated on an investigation in this way. Although they had separate jurisdictions over different parts of the complaints, they felt collaboration was in the best interest of Frank and his parents as many aspects of the health and social care complaints were inextricably linked. The Ombudsmen reported jointly using powers under the new Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc. between Ombudsmen) Order 2007, which has enabled them to work together more effectively in investigating and reporting on complaints which cross their jurisdictions. Ann Abraham, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, said: “Having the powers to issue a joint report has been invaluable, and the Local Government Ombudsman and I have therefore been able to consider maladministration and the resulting injustice in a joined up manner. “This demonstrates the significant value of the Order and in turn has allowed us to think about recommending a remedy to Frank and his parents which addresses, in the round, the injustices they have experienced.” Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “Collaborating with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in this way as a result of the Order is an important step forward. One of the outcomes of this case has been identifying the need for robust and transparent governance arrangements to be in place, in order to provide clear accountability for the actions of authorities. A complainant can then be more readily signposted to the body that can better deal with a complaint.” ‘Injustice in residential care: a joint report by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman for England’ was laid before Parliament on 26 March 2008. 17 March 2008 Medway Council (06/B/12248) & Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (06/B/12247) NEW Maladministration causing injustice (Medway) No maladministration (Wigan) A solicitor complained that both Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and Medway Council, for different reasons, refused to fund mental health aftercare for his client following his discharge from hospital. The Ombudsman found that, as the man was ordinarily resident in Medway at the time of his compulsory admission to hospital, Medway Council was responsible and should now reimburse its share of the aftercare costs. He made no criticism of Wigan Council. The Ombudsman was also critical of Medway Council’s lack of involvement in the arrangements for the man’s discharge from hospital, and commented, “In my view, the Council’s contribution to the discharge process was both limited and ill-informed.” ‘Mr Conrad’ (not his real name) was detained in hospital under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. When he was discharged in 2000 he required aftercare under Section 117 of the Act. Because he was discharged to a specialist care facility outside its area, Medway Council refused to meet the cost of Mr Conrad’s aftercare. Wigan Council, in whose area Mr Conrad lived following his discharge, also declined to pay for his aftercare on grounds that he had previously lived in Medway and because it was not party to his placement. As a result, Mr Conrad had to fund his own aftercare for a prolonged period and incurred legal costs in pursuit of his complaints against both Councils. The Ombudsman considered that Mr Conrad was ‘ordinarily resident’ in Medway at the time of his compulsory admission and so found that Medway Council rather than Wigan Council was the authority responsible for funding his aftercare. The Ombudsman found maladministration by Medway Council causing injustice to Mr Conrad. He found no maladministration by Wigan Council. He recommended that Medway Council should:
29 April 2008 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (06/C/00693) Maladministration causing injustice Wirral Council failed to make even basic checks before placing two young children with a man and his adult daughter for fostering. The Ombudsman also found that the Council failed to provide financial or other support, or make social work visits to the children for several weeks after the placement began. The Council agreed to pay £10,350 compensation (which was the fostering allowance for the period, plus £250 for time and trouble in making the complaints) to the complainant. ‘Mr Carlisle’ (not his real name) complained about a number of issues connected with the placement of two young children with him and his adult daughter for fostering. The children were those of Mr Carlisle’s ex-partner, and were half-siblings to his adult daughter, but no relation to him. The Council placed the children after reports from the children’s father (who was separated from their mother) and others that the children were neglected. The Ombudsman found that the Council:
The Ombudsman commented: “The Council placed two vulnerable young children in the care of Mr Carlisle and his daughter without even the most basic checks on them, their home and their ability to look after young children. Fortunately Mr Carlisle and his daughter have proved to be appropriate carers who have apparently done an excellent job in looking after the children who have come to no harm. This is no thanks to the Council.” The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to pay Mr Carlisle and his daughter £10,350. She also proposed that the Council should review its practices and procedures to ensure that there will be no repetition of children being placed with carers without proper checks being made, conduct an audit of other emergency placements, and make quarterly reports to the appropriate Council committee on complaints received under the statutory procedure. 3 December 2007 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (06/B/9795) Maladministration causing injustice Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council acted unfairly over additional payments to different categories of foster carers. The Ombudsman said that the Council “unreasonably discriminated” in that it did not make the same additional payments to foster carers who were related to the children they fostered as it did to other foster carers. The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations for resolving the complaint, and agreed to pay £2,872.39 to the complainant and review its kinship care policy. ‘Mr Carter’ (not his real name) and his wife looked after a relative’s child between May 2005 and November 2006. This made them ‘kinship carers’ (relatives or friends who care for another family’s children) under the Council’s policy. Kinship carers may have children placed with them by the Council for longer term care before the necessary checks are carried out and they are approved as foster carers. Foster carers are entitled to weekly payments for each child fostered and can claim additional payments for birthdays, Christmas etc. The Council makes weekly payments to kinship carers at the same rate as other foster carers, but it did not make the additional payments to kinship carers. The Council then changed its policy to make these payments claimable from 1 April 2007. The Council refused to make back payment of the additional payments to Mr Carter. The Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault in that it unreasonably discriminated between categories of foster carer in the matter of additional payments. The Council was also at fault in not making back payments of the difference between the support payment made to Mr Carter and the payments it made to foster carers, once it had placed the child with Mr and Mrs Carter and started the process for assessing them as kinship carers. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and, in accordance with his recommendations, the Council paid Mr Carter £2,872.39 and reviewed its kinship care policy. 24 January 2008 Wiltshire County Council (06/B/6454) NEW Maladministration causing injustice 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 said “…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 added “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 recommended 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) have three children. ‘Laura’ 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 found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
The Ombudsman was pleased to report that Laura was now happily settled at a residential school. 17 April 2008 |
