Summary: Ms X complains about decisions taken by the Council in relation to direct payments for her two disabled children. She is particularly unhappy about a decision by an appeal panel taken in June 2018, which she says upheld a reduction in payments and did not properly consider their family circumstances. The Ombudsman found there was fault in how the Council handled evidence presented for an April 2018 ‘mini panel’ hearing. However, the rest of its panel hearings about Ms X’s case, including her appeal in June 2018, were properly conducted.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about decisions taken by the Council in relation to direct payments for her two disabled children. She is particularly unhappy about a decision by an appeal panel taken in June 2018, which she says upheld a reduction in payments and did not properly consider their family circumstances. Ms X says the care provision available for her two children is not adequate and she is struggling to cope.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have spoken to Ms X and we have agreed what I will investigate. I then wrote to the Council to make enquiries and reviewed the material it sent in response.
6. I have seen various documents about Ms X’s case. This includes family assessments completed by a social worker, the original notes written by those considering her case and the decision letters produced by the Council to explain its actions.
7. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Ms X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.
8. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

9. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says a disabled child is a ‘child in need’. This means councils have a legal duty to safeguard them and promote their welfare and upbringing by their families by “providing a range and level of services appropriate to” their needs. They can provide services directly, indirectly or by making direct payments to a person responsible for the child.
10. The Council in this case tasks social workers to carry out assessments of children and then, if needed, a ‘resources panel’ meets to decide what care provision it should provide as a result. The panel relies on a scoring system to decide the level of need according to which criteria each child meets.
11. Ms X complains about the support the Council has offered for two of her children. Both are children in need as they are disabled. The Council has been funding care and support for them for several years. The Council says it changed the amount of direct payment from 24 hours to 16 hours in 2016 as the children were now having regular short breaks at a respite centre. Although Ms X sees this as a cut in support, the Council does not.
12. In June 2017, the child in need plan for the children went before the Council’s Annual Review Panel. It decided to keep things as they were. The Council believed Ms X was satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. However, by September 2017, Ms X called the Council to say it should increase the support for one of her daughters to the previous level.
13. The Council’s records show Ms X asked how she could appeal the decision. It says it explained the process to her. Then, in November 2017, Ms X asked for another family assessment by a social worker because she was not coping with the support already in place. The Council says it offered to make an interim payment and arranged a home visit within a fortnight. However, when a social worker visited they did not consider the family to be in crisis. The review of the care packages remained scheduled for May 2018.
14. In March 2018, Ms X called the Council to say she had been in hospital as she was unwell. She asked it to arrange emergency respite to look after her children. A home visit took place within a week at the request of the Emergency Duty Team. As a result of this visit, the case was referred to a ‘Mini-Panel’ to consider Ms X’s request for extra support. Although the social worker did not identify any imminent risk of harm to the children, it was accepted Ms X’s own health might mean she could not continue with her caring role.
15. The Mini-Panel met in April 2018 but decided to keep the level of support the same. The panel members asked for another family assessment to be carried out by a social worker. This was completed within a month, along with an assessment of Ms X’s needs as a carer. The assessment recommended a full review take place as ‘the family needs had changed from the previous assessment’ and because ‘the previous safety plan was not working’.
16. The Community Resource Panel considered the case in May 2018. It decided to continue the package of 16 hours per month of direct payments plus the short respite breaks for the two children. A social worker visited Ms X to explain the result and she asked to appeal. She sent a letter of appeal soon afterwards and an appeal panel considered the case a week later.
17. In June 2018, the Appeal Panel decided the existing provision would meet the needs identified. As a result, no changes were necessary. Ms X is unhappy with the outcome. She believes the Council should be offering her much more support for her children. She says she cannot cope with their needs and, if the Council cannot help her, she may have to consider placing at least one of the children into the Council’s care full time.

Back to top

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman is not an appeals body. I cannot substitute my view of the right result based on the facts for the professional judgement already made by officers of the Council. Instead, I have to investigate whether the Council has fulfilled its legal duties and whether the process it followed to assess and review Ms X’s case was proper. This means even though Ms X disagrees strongly with the Council’s conclusions, if they were decisions it was entitled to make and it did so properly we cannot change them.
19. The original decision to reduce the care package, taken in 2016, happened too long ago for me to investigate now.
20. I have read through the papers from the various panels which took place to consider Ms X’s case. I am satisfied the panel members were suitable and they considered the evidence put before them.
21. There was however fault with the conduct of the panel in April 2018. Evidence provided to me by the Council shows the panel sat on 5 April 2018. Information supporting Ms X’s case was provided by a charity and emailed to Ms X’s social worker around 11am that day. However, this was not forwarded on to the panel members until nearly 9pm. Given this information is not referred to in either the panel’s original notes, or the decision letter sent a week later, I have decided on the balance of probabilities it was not taken into account when it could have been.
22. This was fault. However, I cannot say any injustice was caused to Ms X as a result. I am not sure the evidence from the charity would have changed the Mini-Panel’s conclusions. The result of the Mini-Panel saw a further family assessment ordered and that was to Ms X's benefit. And then the Community Resource Panel heard the case again within a month.
23. When the appeal panel met in June, all the evidence was available to it. It considered the arguments made by Ms X but decided they did not justify changing the support plan in place. This was a professional judgement decision taking in consideration of all the facts by suitably qualified officers. I am satisfied they were aware of Ms X’s family circumstances. I have seen their original notes and the decision letter issued and cannot find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault in how the Council handled evidence submitted for an April 2018 panel hearing. However, the rest of its panel hearings about Ms X’s case, including her appeal in June 2018, were properly conducted.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman