Disabled children

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Hackney (17 017 581)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 19-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council's short break service failed to respond appropriately to her request for direct payments to support her family and son. The Council failed to provide her with timely and appropriate support. The Council has acted appropriately to recommendations from the statutory children's complaint investigation into this complaint. The Council has agreed to provide the Ombudsman and Ms X with a summary of the outcome of its still ongoing review into services for disabled children once this is complete.

  • Lancashire County Council (17 010 812)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 10-Dec-2018

    Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to put in place support and transport for her son, delayed completing an occupational therapy referral and wrote to her in a rude and aggressive fashion. I have found no fault by the Council.

  • Southampton City Council (18 002 221)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 20-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has delayed in making a decision about funding for an extension as an adaptation for her step-son who has disabilities. She says this delay has impacted on the child's health and behaviour because they can no longer eat together as a family, and there is no room for activities. She also complains that the Council's records are inaccurate, and about the way the Council has handled her complaint. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for the delays because the Council is entitled to defer a decision if further assessments are needed. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the way it handled Mrs X's complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and remind staff of the complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will not consider the part of Mrs X's complaint about the Council's records. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider this part of the complaint, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate.

  • Kent County Council (18 000 943)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 12-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it considered his request for Direct Payments for his son and his attempts to challenge its decision on this matter. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and for this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Kent County Council (18 001 512)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 12-Nov-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains that the Council offered home to school transport which was unsuitable for her disabled child. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly consider Ms X's reasons for saying the transport was unsuitable. The Council agreed to a financial remedy to reflect Ms X's distress and time and trouble.

  • London Borough of Hackney (18 002 769)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 07-Nov-2018

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's consideration of Mr F's complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure and it took the action recommended by the panel at stage 3 of that procedure.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (17 008 460)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 05-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mrs X said the Council failed to put in place the actions agreed following its consideration of her complaint. It also failed to offer a remedy for the complaints it upheld and its complaints handling process was subject to significant delay. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to change its procedures and make a financial remedy.

  • Peterborough City Council (17 019 369)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 25-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mrs C complained that the Council failed to carry out a specialist assessment for her son, D, as a deafblind child, or provide appropriate services for him over a four year period. This failure had a devastating impact on the whole family and led to Mrs C asking for her son to be taken into care. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs C and her family a total of £12,750 and review its procedures in respect of other deafblind children in its area.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 013 893)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 11-Sep-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B's complaint about her son's respite care. It would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the Council for a stage 3 review under the children's statutory complaints procedures.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (18 001 193)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 23-Aug-2018

    Summary: Mrs X made complaints about things that had happened to her family, including her daughter Y, who has complex needs. The Council considered these complaints at Stage One of the statutory complaints procedure but not at Stage Two even though Mrs X and Y remained unhappy. The Council taking forward their complaints to Stage Two.