Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal of her request for a specific respite care placement. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions about what respite to offer.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal of her request for overnight respite care for her child at the school they currently attend. She said the respite options the Council is prepared to provide are not appropriate for her child’s needs. She said, as a result, she has been caring for her child without any support since
   May 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information from:
• Ms X’s complaint and from two telephone calls with her; and
• the Council’s response to my enquiries.
5. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Ms X’s child, Y, has disabilities and learning difficulties which affect their learning, behaviour and communication. Y needs care and support 24/7. Y lives with the family and during term time Y goes to a special school.
7. Before May 2019 Ms X and the family had respite from caring for Y when Y spent three nights a week at a respite centre. The Council arranged and funded this care.

Events May 2019 onwards

8. In May 2019 another child at the respite centre injured Y. The Council investigated the incident. It considered the attack had been unexpected and the centre made changes to help ensure such an incident would not happen again. The Council considered the centre had put in place enough safety measures to ensure the safety of all the children there. It considered it was safe for Y to return there and that the centre was still appropriate for Y’s needs. However, Ms X remained unhappy about the incident and the way the centre dealt with it. She would not send Y back to the respite centre.
9. The school Y attends takes boarding pupils and also offers overnight care for a few nights a week. Ms Y says Y is happy at the school and familiar with the surroundings. She asked the Council if Y could board at the school during term time or spend three nights a week respite at the school.
10. The Council reassessed Y’s needs in early June, in July and December 2019. The assessments said Y still needed the weekly short breaks. The Council said this respite benefited the whole family. It said there was a danger Ms X would have difficulty managing Y’s needs without the support of short breaks. However, the Council did not assess Y needed full-time residential education. The assessments said Y thrived on his current educational provision.
11. The Council said it could provide any of the following for Y’s respite:
• Y could still go back to the respite centre.
• Y could spend three nights a week with a foster family.
• The Council could make direct payments for the family to arrange respite themselves.
• The Council could fund support from carers visiting Y at home.
12. Ms X said she would not let Y go back to the respite centre where Y got injured. She considered Y was happier after they stopped going there. Y had previous experience of foster care and Ms X considered it was too confusing for Y to be effectively part of two different families. She was also worried about the danger of further injury to Y. She said the direct payments the Council would provide would not cover as much respite as it could commission from the respite centre. She considered having support at home would not give the rest of the family the break they needed.
13. The Council noted Ms X’s views and also noted she had used direct payments and carers at home before and they had not worked well. However, it still would not agree to respite at Y’s school. The Council said it did not commission short breaks from Y’s school. It said it would not use the school for short breaks when it provided other options that were appropriate for Y.

Findings

14. There is no dispute between Ms X and the Council about the need for Y to have respite care. Ms X has concerns about the options for respite the Council has offered and would prefer alternative respite provision at Y’s current school. But the evidence shows the Council:
• considered the incident Y was involved in and the measures taken to improve safety at the respite centre;
• assessed Y’s education and care needs properly;
• considered Ms X’s views; and
• offered respite options it considers will meet Y’s needs.
15. There is no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions about what respite to offer. In the absence of fault, I cannot question the respite options the Council offered.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have now completed my investigation because I have found no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman