Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of an occupational therapy assessment and support for her family. The Council’s accepted fault for causing delays and how it communicated with her. It was also at fault for causing delays in its complaints handling. The Council’s apology and proposed remedy was not enough to acknowledge the inconvenience and uncertainty she experienced. The Council will therefore make an increased symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms C, complained about the Council’s handling of adult social care support for her family. She said it:
• delayed providing an occupational therapy assessments and related support;
• failed to provide her children with appropriate care or home adaptations;
• failed to make reasonable adjustments and communicated poorly; and
• caused delays in handling her complaint.
2. Ms C said, as a result, she and her family experienced distress and uncertainty. She also said the delays prevented her from being rehoused sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. 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)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her family’s adult social care support between January 2024 to March 2025 when it provided its final complaint response.
7. I have not investigated Ms C’s concerns about the Council’s handling of her housing situation as we have considered this in a separate investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms C and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
10. 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

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Child in need

11. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
12. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.
13. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)

Council’s complaints process

14. The Council says it will acknowledge complaints and respond within 20 working days.
15. A complainant can request a review of a stage one response if they feel their complaint has not been properly considered or bring the concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman.

What happened

16. I have set out the key information and events which occurred. This is not intended to be a detailed summary of everything that happened.
17. Ms C has several children all of whom has health conditions which impacts their daily lives. They all have a child in need plan and live in a 4-bedroom property.
18. In January 2024 Ms C requested an occupational therapist (OT) assessment of the family needs in their home. This included to make the accommodation safe and consider adaptions to mitigate damage from one of her children’s challenging needs and behaviour.
19. An OT from the Council Adult Social Care team subsequently started processing her request and spoke with Ms C. The OT provided her with information, leaflets, referral forms to support adaptations.
20. In March 2024 Ms C shared medical evidence for her children and returned some forms to the Council’s Adult Social care and its Housing team.
21. The OT contacted the Council’s Housing Team to support her request for increased points in Ms C’s housing allocation application. She was placed on a waiting list for the OT assessment. The family’s need was identified as mainly needing rehousing.
22. The Council Housing team told her it had considered the family’s housing needs. It found the family was in need of a six-bedroom property. They were severely overcrowded including having entitlement to a high number of medical points and welfare points on its allocations scheme.
23. In Spring 2024 Ms C asked for a disabled facilities grant to make their existing property more suitable for the family. The Council’s Adult Social Care told her any adaptations or changes would normally be done to the new property the family needed. However, it would consider her request when its OT assessment could be completed.
24. Communication between the Council’s housing and its Adult Social Care team shows housing was expecting the OT’s assessment report to help it determine whether the assessment impacted the family’s housing need. The OT was clear the assessment was separate to the housing need, and related to the support the family needed in the home.
25. In Summer 2024 an OT from the Council’s Adult Social Care visited Ms C and completed an assessment of the family’s needs. This included a risk assessment and consideration of how to support Ms C’s child in the home to mitigate the impact of his challenging behaviour.
26. The Council subsequently reached its view the best option was to consider a portable adaptation which could be moved with the family if, and when, they were moved to a new accommodation. This would be through a company which specialised in such solutions.
27. The Council told Ms C it would not consider a disabled facilities grant, as it would cover the cost of the adaptations through its budgets. A trial of the equipment would be arranged for Ms C’s child to try. However, due to the size of the test equipment this could not be in her home.
28. Over the following months the Council worked with Ms C and the company to arrange a trial. However, due to availability of the OT and cancellations by the company for proposed dates, no trial was arranged with Ms C.
29. The Council’s Housing and Adult Social care met in Autumn and late 2024 to discuss the case. The OT again informed the Council’s Housing team that the assessment would not change the family’s housing need. This was unless there was a change in circumstances which meant they were entitled to more housing points. The OT’s assessment report would therefore not be relevant for the Council’s housing decision.
30. In late 2024 the Council’s Adult Social Care arranged for Ms C’s child to attend and trial the portable equipment intended for their home. The Council apologised for the delay and explained it had been difficult to get the company to respond and attend on its proposed dates.
31. The trial took place in January 2025. However, Ms C’s child did not engage with the equipment despite attempts to encourage this. The Council’s Adult Social Care subsequently closed the support for the family. It explained this was because it could not provide further input until the family was moved to a different accommodation, but risks had been considered and mitigated. Adult Social Care again informed the Council’s Housing team of its support for a move.

Ms C’s complaint

32. Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of Adult Social Care support for her family. She said it:
• delayed providing an occupational therapy assessment and related support;
• failed to provide her children with appropriate care or home adaptations, included refused to consider a disabled facilities grant; and
• failed to make reasonable adjustments and communicated poorly.
33. The Council acknowledged Ms C’s complaint and said it would respond in January 2025.
34. In late February 2025, the Council provided its response. It accepted it had communicated poorly with her and delays had occurred, including how it had considered the whole family in the process. It offered a symbolic payment of £50 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience Ms C has experienced. It also explained:
• it had taken steps to address to concerns with the OT, and arranged regular meetings within the team to ensure more oversight of cases;
• its manager had reached out to Ms C following her complaint and arranged for another OT to be allocated. The OT had subsequently arranged the trial for her child; and
• it had followed up with the Council’s housing team when the trial had been unsuccessful to support the family’s housing move.
35. Ms C asked the Council to reconsider her complaint as she felt its remedy was inadequate due to the length of time the assessment process had taken, and to confirm rehousing was the only option for the family. She also said she wanted the OT’s continued involvement and its delayed complaints handling had caused additional distress.
36. In its final response the Council reiterated its initial complaint finding and apology. It also apologised for the delayed complaint response. It explained the delay in arranging the trial was largely outside its control and there was no evidence the OT assessment had impacted the family’s rehousing process. It again offered the unchanged remedy of £50.
37. Ms C asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
38. Ms C has since raised a new complaint with the Council regarding its Housing Teams handling of her family’s housing situation. We have investigated this under a separate complaint.

Analysis and findings

The Occupational therapy assessment and support

39. The Council agreed to complete an OT assessment of Ms C’s family in January 2024. It took a year until January 2025 until this process was completed and the proposed equipment had been trialled.
40. The Council has acknowledged it had taken longer than it should have and explained some parts of this was outside its control. An apology was provided.
41. I agree the Council was at fault for the significant period of time this took. However, a significant period of the delay was outside the Council’s control as it could not progress without the company responding and being available for the trial. In addition, it had considered risks for the family and steps had previously been put in place to mitigate risks.
42. I therefore found Ms C experienced inconvenience due to the uncertainty this caused, but the Adult Social Care and OT service was not the cause of delays in her housing situation and the impact this had on the family.

Communication with Ms C and complaints handling

43. The Council also accepted its communication with Ms C had been poor and it had caused delays in its complaints handling.
44. I agree with the Council’s findings. This is because at times it failed to respond in a timely manner or failed to communicate with her over several months. It also failed to respond to her complaint until five weeks after it said it would. While I acknowledge steps to conduct the trial was taking place around the same time, this should not have delayed its responses.
45. I found this therefore caused Ms C some additional frustration and uncertainty.

Injustice and service improvements

46. I have considered whether the Council’s apology and the remedy offer of £50 for its Adult Social Care and OT handling of her case were appropriate to acknowledge the impact its faults had.
47. I found this was not enough to recognise the unnecessary distress and uncertainty Ms C experienced. In reaching my view, I also had regard to:
• the arrangement of the trial was to some extent outside the Council’s control;
• the trial was unsuccessful and there was therefore not a delay in having this support in place. It was subsequently entitled to reach its view to close the family’s case as rehousing was the only option to address the ongoing challenges they were experiencing; and
• the family’s housing situation was not for the Council’s Adult Social Care or OT to comment on, nor that they contributed to any delays regarding this.
48. I have not made service improvements on this case. This is because the Council identified faults in its complaints process and put in place discussions and learning with staff to improve its service.

Back to top

Action

49. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
• pay Ms C a symbolic payment of £200 to acknowledge the unnecessary inconvenience, uncertainty, and time and trouble its faults caused her.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council which caused Ms C inconvenience. The Council’s proposed remedy was not enough to acknowledge the impact its faults caused her, it has agreed to provide an increased symbolic payment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman