Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide disabled adaptations for her son, Z, did not take action when she complained her neighbour was abusing Z and failed to provide out of school activities for Z as specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to provide disabled adaptations for her son, Z;
2. failed to take action after she reported that her neighbour was abusing and grooming Z;
3. failed to provide the social and special educational provision specified in Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan;
4. breached data protection regulations when it passed her telephone number to a third party;
5. failed to carry out housing repairs;
6. is harassing her and intimidating her by sending workmen to her property to carry out housing repairs; and
7. will not remove a shed which she says is encroaching onto her land.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated complaints a) to c) above. I have not investigated complaints d) to g) and explain why at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Ms X and considered the information she provided.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me. This included a copy of Z’s EHC Plan, copies of court orders associated with the case, information about Child in Need meetings and complaints and other correspondence between the Council and Ms X.
8. I have written to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Ms X has lived in a housing association property in the Council area since 2016 with her son, Z who has an EHC Plan.
10. Z’s EHC Plan includes a requirement for him to have access to leisure activities out of school.
11. In December 2016, the Council’s Children’s Support Services (CSS) appointed Ms X an officer who held an initial meeting. At the meeting, the officer provided Ms X with information about the leisure activities provision available. Ms X said she would visit a number of the providers before making a decision.
12. Between December and March 2017 the officer worked with Ms X to try to set up activities with Provider B. It confirmed four sessions, one each Saturday, with Ms X and asked her to agree Z’s draft support plan which specified this weekly provision. Ms X did not sign the Plan.
13. Provider B needed to change the dates of the provision over the Easter holidays. Ms X was upset about this and there were a number of telephone calls between the CSS officer and Ms X. The Council says the calls proved to be challenging. Ms X cancelled the provision with Provider B.
14. In April 2017, the Council made Z subject of a Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect.
15. The CSS officer continued to work with Ms X and offered to set up activities again for Z with Provider B. The officer also asked Ms X to sign Z’s support plan. Ms X refused to do so. The Council gave Ms X prepaid cards for her to pay a provider directly.
16. In August 2017, Provider B said it could no longer accept Z because Ms X had been abusive to staff on several occasions. The officer asked Provider B to reconsider but the provider refused.
17. Also in August 2017, court proceedings lodged by the Council resulted in Z being made the subject of a supervision order and prohibited steps order.
18. The officer found two new providers for Z and set up meetings with Ms X for her to visit them but Ms X did not do so. The officer identified a third provider but Ms X did not send Z.
19. In February 2018, the Council appointed Ms X with a new CSS officer. Ms X told the new officer that she had agreed a support plan with the previous officer. This was not the case.
20. At the end of March, Ms X told the officer she was unhappy Z was not attending any leisure activities. The officer said Ms X must first agree the support plan and said it would email Ms X the information that had already been gathered. The officer suggested a support planning meeting but Ms X refused.
21. The following day, the officer emailed Ms X with the draft support plan for her consideration and comments.
22. The support planning meeting went ahead without Ms X on 4 April. Officers agreed to fund a support worker for Z and also pay for weekly activities. Ms X had originally said she was prepared to consider two providers she had identified, but then changed her mind. Therefore, the Council named a new provider, Provider E.
23. The CSS officer sent Ms X the draft support plan on 5 April. Ms X approved it the same day.
24. Provider E said it would not accept Z because he was too young. The CSS officer began to source other providers. In the meantime, another provider said Z could attend whilst a permanent place was found.
25. During this time, it was open to Ms X to source activities for Z and to pay for them with her prepaid card.
26. In August, the CSS officer sent Ms X the profiles of two potential support workers. The officer said they would look for community based activities for Z to attend with the support worker. Ms X did not respond and the manager of this support worker said they were having problems engaging with Ms X.
27. In January and February 2019, the Council tried again to engage with Ms X. It appointed her a new CSS officer and also a social worker. The officers arranged with Ms X for Z to start weekly activities with one of the previous providers it had suggested, Provider F. However, Ms X did not send Z. This is because she wanted the Council to provide him with school transport to access the provision. However, the Council would not do so because Ms X was in receipt of a personal transport budget which had been set up to fund this travel.
28. Ms X cancelled the provision. In March Ms X complained to the Council and said it had refused Z a place on race and religious grounds. The Council denied this was the case and asked Ms X to reconsider her cancellation of the provision. It said it would work with her over the transport issue.
29. Also in March, the Council offered Ms X a face to face meeting and offered her school transport to Provider F until Easter and then said it would amend her personal transport budget to enable Z to use school transport. The Council provided Ms X with a detailed schedule of support with the provider and confirmed a support worker would be available every other week. Ms X refused this support.

Disabled works to Ms X’s property

30. Ms X was referred to the Occupational Therapy (OT) Service in December 2016.
31. An OT carried out a home assessment in January 2017. It was agreed that bathing equipment should be trialled and the OT would liaise with the Council about a bathroom refurbishment which was to start shortly with a view to incorporating any OT recommendations.
32. Later in January, Ms X phoned the OT service and said she was unhappy with the assessment and the equipment to be trialled. The OT stated Ms X became angry and would not stop shouting and so the OT ended the call.
33. A different OT was assigned to the case. This OT arranged a site visit with Ms X for the end of March. However, Ms X then queried what the visit was for. When it was explained it was to decide if the bath equipment was suitable to meet Ms X and Z’s needs, Ms X said she would trial the equipment herself and cancelled the visit. The OT advised Ms X to contact the manager. However, there was no further contact between Ms X and OT.

Complaints about Ms X’s neighbour and harassment and intimidation by the Council

34. In April 2019, the Council held a multi-agency meeting in relation to Ms X and Z. This was attended by the Police, housing, health, education and social care. It was agreed that all agencies would continue to work with Ms X and Z and try to continue engaging with her.
35. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the Police had investigated Ms X’s complaints about her neighbour and had found these to be unfounded.
36. The Council said there were urgent repairs that it needed to carry out to Ms X’s property which was why workmen and officers from the Housing Department had been trying to contact her. The Council was now looking at other ways to ensure this work was carried out.

My findings

37. Z missed out on some of the leisure activity provision required by his EHC Plan. The Council made repeated, appropriate and proportionate attempts to work with Ms X to secure delivery of this provision. There was no fault by the Council.
38. The Council worked with Ms X to identify possible adaptations to her property to facilitate bathing for Z. On the evidence so far, Ms X did not wish to trial the equipment or hold a further meeting at her property. Because the Council took appropriate steps to investigate options there was no fault by the Council.
39. The Council appropriately checked Ms X’s allegations concerning her neighbour with the police. It decided, on the basis of this, that there were no outstanding safeguarding issues in relation to this matter. The Council was entitled to reach this decision having made relevant enquiries. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. I have not investigated the following complaints made by Ms X:
• The Council breached data protection regulations when it passed her telephone number of a third party. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to investigate complaints about potential breaches of personal data.
• The Council failed to carry out housing repairs, is harassing Ms X and intimidating her and will not remove a shed. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. These complaints are investigated by the Housing Services Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman