Disabled children


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bracknell Forest Council (20 002 618)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 05-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider an application she made for a blue badge for her son. We found the initial explanation of the Council's decision was lacking in detail, but we found the decision the Council ultimately made not to grant a blue badge was one it was entitled to reach. We recommended the Council should improve the way it documents its approach to considering applications.

  • Torbay Council (20 001 980)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 04-May-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not dealt properly with his son's social care needs. The Council was at fault because it did not record its decision making about C's assessment and did not deal with Mr B's complaint properly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, backdate C's support to his original application date and provide guidance to staff.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (19 019 027)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 29-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide an appropriate level of support to assist in caring for her disabled daughter. She says the Council should have offered an assessment and care package since 2007. We have found some fault in the assessment process. We have also found the Council failed to properly remedy faults that were identified during its complaints procedure. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and her daughter and review its practices.

  • Kent County Council (20 005 821)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 12-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide his son, F, with social care support following his discharge from psychiatric hospital in July 2019. The Council failed to investigate Mr X's complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the outcome may have been different. The Council agreed to arrange and start a stage 2 investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure within one month of the final decision. It also agreed to make a symbolic time and trouble payment to Mr X and review its complaints policy.

  • Devon County Council (19 021 160)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 26-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her son Y's care package and agreed the Direct Payments for his care needs. We found fault by the Council in its failure to consider Mrs X's complaints through the statutory complaint procedure. But this did not cause her a significant injustice because the Council dealt with her concerns through its corporate complaint procedure. However, the Council took too long to in its investigation causing Mrs X frustration and time and trouble in chasing the Council for responses. The Council has accepted our recommended remedy in this case so we have completed our investigation.

  • London Borough Of Barnet (19 013 618)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the actions taken by the Council in respect of complaints about the care and support provided to their son (Z) by Children's Services. We found the Council delayed in the completing the complaints process. It also delayed in progressing the assessment and planning process for Z. This caused frustration, distress and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs B and Z. The Council has agreed to pay the family £800.

  • Darlington Borough Council (19 020 378)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 08-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council arranged respite care for her son, Y, which did not meet his assessed needs. She also complained the Council offered her insufficient direct payments and did not respond to her complaint about this in a timely manner. She said this caused her stress and had a negative effect on Y's social development. The Council was at fault when it delayed responding to Mrs X's complaint in line with statutory timescales. The Council should make a payment of £150 to acknowledge the stress, time and trouble she experienced because of this. The Council was not at fault in its management of Y's respite placement and direct payment funding.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 020 938)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 23-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr B complained to the Council about the service his brother received from children's services. The Council considered this complaint under the children's statutory complaint procedure. Mr B says there was fault with the Council's complaint investigation. He is unhappy with the behaviour of the Chair of the stage three panel and not being able to use a projector. He says the Council did not make adjustments for his learning difficulty. The Council was at fault for a short delay in its stage 3 complaint response, but we do not consider this to have caused Mr B or his family significant injustice.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (19 020 722)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 18-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's decision to refuse his son a Blue Badge. He says the decision puts his son and others at risk of harm. We have found no fault.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (19 018 077)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 14-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X says the Council unfairly refused to complete adaptations to her home for her disabled daughter, D. She says this caused her and D an injustice as D's movements around their home are restricted by its current structure. There was some fault in the process the Council initially followed, for which it has apologised. This caused confusion and upset. But the Council has since proposed other reasonable adaptations to Mrs X's home. There has been some unnecessary delay in implementing some of the adaptations Mrs X has agreed to. This has caused some injustice as D's movement has been restricted. We have made some recommendations to acknowledge this and to help provide resolution. But the Council is not at fault in its approach in other respects.

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.