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.

Surrey County Council (09 007 810)

Category : Children's care services > Disabled children

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 12 Jun 2014

Summary

Complaint from a woman on her own behalf and also for her son that the services provided by the council and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) were inadequate, uncoordinated and failed to meet their needs.

The complaint

A report of a joint investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman into a complaint about Surrey County Council and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Complaint from a woman on her own behalf and also for her son that the services provided by the council and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) were inadequate, uncoordinated and failed to meet their needs.

We identified a number of failures in the services provided by the trust and the council for both mother and son. However the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that the son's mental health, development or general well being would now be better but for these failures.

Finding & recommendations

The Ombudsmen upheld the complaint and recommends:

  • the council and the trust write jointly to the woman to acknowledge the failings we identified in the report and apologise for the impact of those failings on her and her son;
  • the trust should pay £500 each to the woman and her son to recognise the distress resulting from the failures we identified (this is in addition to the £200 the trust has already offered);
  • the council should pay £2,500 each to the woman and her son (this is in addition to the £1,500 it has already offered for the delay in completing the core assessment);
  • the council should offer to work with the son, using resources from Connexions and the Autism Champion to help him achieve his ambition of higher education; and
  • the trust and the council should also, within three months develop actions plans to address the failings we have identified. They should send a copy of the action plan to us and the women, update us on progress periodically and tell us when the action plan has been implemented.

 

 

 

 

Print this page