Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide appropriate support and social care provision for his son, Y, causing him stress and affecting Y’s welfare. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making on, or provision of support for Y, but finds fault in its handling of Y’s case and Mr X’s complaint. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides Mr X an apology, make a payment for time, trouble and distress and takes action to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide appropriate support and social care provision for his son, Y, who has a diagnosed disability. Mr X says he has suffered stress trying to get support for Y and Y’s welfare has suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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. 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.
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 Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X and the Council the chance to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered the comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s social care

7. A council will assess a child to identify whether they have any needs and if so, how the council or other services may meet those needs.

Children’s statutory complaints process

8. Complaints made by or on behalf of children about council services must follow a three stage statutory complaints procedure: local resolution, investigation and review Panel.
9. Government guidance “Getting the best from complaints” makes clear that councils can only vary from the statutory complaints procedure in exceptional circumstances.
10. A council should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving a complaint.
11. If a person remains unhappy they can ask for a stage 2 investigation. The council should appoint an independent investigator to carry this out, overseen by an independent person. The investigation should be completed and a stage 2 response issued within 25 working days.
12. If a person remains unhappy they can ask for further consideration by a Review Panel. The Panel should meet within 30 working days of the request for a review and provide its report within 5 working days of the meeting.
13. The Council can make an early referral to the Ombudsman in certain circumstances. The Ombudsman will generally expect the following to have happened at stage 2 before accepting an early referral:
• a robust stage 2 report;
• a complete adjudication; and
• an outcome where all significant complaints have been upheld and the Council has a clear action plan or has agreed most of the complainant’s desired outcomes.

Council’s complaint process

14. The Council provides information about its complaints process on its website and in a booklet “Have your say- children and young people services”. This sets out its procedure for dealing with complaints about children’s care services. I note this only refers to two stages of the statutory process.

Activities unlimited

15. Activities Unlimited is a short break service for disabled children and young people in Suffolk. Families who have children with additional needs can visit their website, register their child to become a member and then book activities and short breaks with funding provided by the Council.

What happened

16. Y lives with his mother and sister in the UK. However, Mr X spends two weekends each month with his children in addition to six weeks’ holiday time.
17. In August 2018 Y’s mother contacted the Council as she wanted regular respite from caring for Y.
18. In October 2018 a Disabled Children and Young Peoples (“DCYP”) social worker assessed Y with input from Y’s mother. The assessment shows Y’s mother wanted Y to stay overnight at his school to give her respite. The Council later shared this assessment with Mr X who added Y needed overnight stays to help build his independence.
19. The social worker concluded Y did not meet the threshold for a service from the DCYP team, as he had higher functioning autism rather than a severe learning disability. But found there were some areas that needed to be explored. Namely, short breaks for Y’s mother to allow her to continue her caring role and to give her second child a break from Y. The social worker recommended discussion with the Child In Need (“CIN”) team to see whether they could provide this support or whether there should be a referral to the Early Help (“EH”) team. A manager then agreed to transfer the case to the CIN team.
20. In January 2019 the Council held a CIN meeting with Y’s parents and agreed a CIN plan.
21. The goals for Y were:
• support to minimise self-injurious behaviours;
• to be as independent as possible and;
• to have time with peers.
22. The Council’s role in achieving these goals included:
• a GP referral;
• liaising with the family to explore summer holiday activities at school;
• exploring occasional boarding for Y at school;
• The social worker would ask the County Resource Panel (the “Panel”) to agree funding for overnight stays at Y’s school to increase his independence.
23. The CIN Plan noted the budget for Activities Unlimited would continue as necessary.
24. I note Mr X was happy with the CIN Plan.
25. The Council was due to review the CIN Plan on 7 March.
26. The Council was separately reviewing Y’s EHCP at this time. Mr X therefore suggested the Council include the social care provision agreed in the CIN Plan within the draft EHCP. (I note Y’s previous EHCP did not identify any social care needs.)
27. On 5 March the Council told Mr Y the CIN team was not the appropriate team to support Y and it would transfer Y to the EH team. The Council’s case notes say managers adjusted the CIN Plan because the family needed to explore other short break services before approaching the Panel to fund overnight stays at school. It was likely the Panel would not consider such an application unless the family had first explored other avenues of support.
28. Officers from the DYCP, CIN and EH team met on 12 March to discuss what support the Council could offer Y. The Council sent Mr X a note of the meeting afterwards. This suggested it was premature for the Council to arrange overnight stays for Y at school until it had explored other options. And, it was possible Activities Unlimited funding could be used to fund holiday clubs and overnight stays. The Council’s case notes say the case did not meet the threshold for CIN and it was too early to look at funding overnight stays at school.
29. Mr X told the Council Y was unable to attend activities without a parent accompanying him, therefore he could not attend overnight stays with Activities Unlimited. However, Y would be comfortable with overnight stays at school.
30. On 23 March Mr X complained to the Council about its lack of communication and its decision to transfer Y from the CIN team. He said Y had received no support over the last seven months and he asked the Council to resume the CIN Plan.
31. On 1 April Mr X met with officers from the DCYP, CIN and EH team.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 8 April. It accepted its process had failed and apologised. The Council explained the CIN team was unable to offer overnight breaks or ask the Panel to consider this without exhausting other options first and without management agreement. Therefore, the DCYP team would continue to support Y. However, in the circumstances it would nevertheless ask the Panel for overnight support for Y within his educational placement.
33. On 8 April Mr X contacted the Council again. He said he had been happy with progress and planned actions under the CIN team. However, the CIN social worker then failed to communicate with him or other Council officers. Council officers were unprepared for the meeting on 1 April and in fact the EH team could not offer support. He asked the Council to ensure better communication between teams and ensure there was a team in place to support Y. He also asked for a record of the Panel’s decision making on overnight support for Y.
34. The Council responded to Mr X on 11 April. It recognised the initial assessment by DCYP should have been clearer as to what he wanted and what was available. It said the social worker’s decision to transfer Y to the CIN team for general support was “premature and unrealistic”. It suggested Mr X was then given unrealistic expectations as to what the Council could offer. The CIN and EH team then met with Mr X to see if there was any support they could offer. However, the Council considered the support Mr X wanted would usually be provided by parents. It said Y’s school already provides specialist support for Y’s social integration. And, the school would provide ongoing advice, guidance and education. It also suggested Mr X access Activities Unlimited. The case had not yet gone to the Panel though it considered it unlikely it would agree the request.
35. The Council explained it would take action to ensure appropriate scrutiny of assessments and discussion between CIN and DCYP managers before agreeing any request or transfer. And it would work with managers to ensure they thoroughly scrutinise assessments before authorising.
36. Mr X contacted the Council again as he was unhappy with its response. He said it was the Council, rather than the parents or school’s responsibility to provide social care provision under an EHCP. He wanted Y to gain independence and social skills in preparation for adulthood.
37. On 16 April the Council issued a final EHCP referring to the CIN Plan agreed earlier. The EHCP says Y will be supported by a CIN Plan to build his confidence and allow him to continue in a happy home environment. Y will also use community based activities to build social relationships (Activities Unlimited). It says a social worker will provide support through the CIN Plan as considered appropriate by social care and provide ongoing support as required.
38. The Council responded to Mr X on 1 May. It explained Y did not need a social worker, rather his school and other services were available to meet his needs. It noted it did not yet have the Panel outcome. It asked Mr X what other support he felt was lacking.
39. Mr X responded further on 19 May.
40. On 5 June the Council sent Mr X an outline of the request to Panel, the school’s view and the Panel chair’s view. I note the school said it would consider activities and holiday clubs for Y but would not support overnight stays until these could first take place. The Panel chair had said the Council should consider other options before discussion at Panel. The Panel chair said Y needed to try the school holiday club first, funded by Activities Unlimited, benefits and parents. And suggested the EH team work with Y’s mother on routines and boundaries.
41. The Council provided its final complaint response on 6 June. It explained it had addressed Mr X’s concerns and clarified what level of support was available. As the complaint procedure cannot directly challenge professional judgments made by the social care practitioners or Panel it would not arrange further consideration of his complaint. However, he could contact the Ombudsman.
42. Mr X asked the Council for a record of the Panel’s meeting. He also said his views had been taken out of context; the school’s view differed to that given previously; he was unsure the Panel had considered all relevant documents and; there are no after school clubs as mentioned.
43. The Council explained the Panel chair considered the referral before the Panel meeting and decided the case did not meet the criteria for Panel discussion at that time. This was because earlier support routes had not first been explored. It explained it had summarised Mr X’s views as it understood them and the Panel had access to relevant documents. It apologised for the incorrect reference to after school clubs but said this did not affect the outcome.
44. On 20 June the Council further explained the EH team would work with Y’s mother. Regarding 1:1 support to access Activities Unlimited it explained it would expect parents to support their children when needed.
45. Mr X told the Council he wanted to be involved in the EH support plan and meetings, not just Y’s mother.
46. The Council said it was up to Y’s mother as main carer to work with EH if she felt able to. However, it would send him a copy of the EH Plan.
47. I note the EH Plan sets out the same goals as identified in the CIN Plan.
48. In terms of support to reduce self injurious behaviours, the EH Plan says Y’s parents are to explore the Council’s wellbeing hub and CAMHS support. To support Y in independence, his school will continue to work with him. To support Y to spend time with peers the family would liaise with the school about holiday activities in part funded by the budget for Activities Unlimited. The EH team would also provide support to Y’s mother around routines and boundaries.
49. On 19 July Mr X complained the Council should have involved him before producing the EH Plan.
50. The Council says EH met with Y’s mother on 30 July 2019. At the same time it contacted Mr X by phone however as it was difficult to speak he agreed to email the team his concerns.
51. On 30 July Mr X contacted the Council to say Y’s behaviour had deteriorated and he was suicidal. He was unhappy the Council had decided Y needed no support from the DCYP or CIN team.
52. The Council later closed Y’s case with the EH team.
53. On 17 September Mr X complained the EH team had closed Y’s case without offering Y any support.
54. The Council told Mr X it could not offer the specialist support Y needed but noted Y was now in touch with CAMHS.
55. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. In summary he said:
• The Council is not providing the social care provision set out in Y’s EHCP of April 2019.
• The Council did not follow, and later abandoned, the CIN Plan.
• The CIN Team transferred the case to the EH team even though the EH team could not help Y.
• The EH team only involved Y’s mother when it wrote a support plan.
• The EH team did not provide any support for Y and closed the case without telling him.
• The Council did not document its decision making.
• The Council provided misleading and incorrect information to the Panel.
• The Council repeatedly said Y could access support through Activities Unlimited, but he cannot do this without one to one support, which the Council will not fund.
• No team has accepted responsibility for meeting Y’s needs and the Council will not discuss this further.
56. In response to enquiries the Council provided comments on Mr X’s complaint. It also confirmed it dealt with Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It said it did not go to stage 2 because Mr X’s outstanding complaints were based on professional judgments that the complaints procedure could not challenge.
57. In comments on my draft decision Mr X reiterated:
• The Council did not provide the social care provision set out in the EHCP.
• Y could not access Activities Unlimited without further support from the Council.
• The Council has no legal grounds to show preference for working with the “main carer” and its policy say it will involve absent parents.

Findings

58. The Council can only depart from the children’s statutory complaints procedure in exceptional circumstances. That the Council felt nothing could be gained by going to stage 2 is not an exceptional circumstance or good reason not to follow the statutory process. Mr X and the Council engaged in lengthy correspondence, all reportedly at stage 1 and the Council did not allow a stage 2 investigation. This amounts to fault. If the Council had passed Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 in June 2019 (at the latest) as it should have done, his complaint would have been investigated sooner and he would have been saved the time and trouble of contacting the Ombudsman. I will make a recommendation to prevent recurrence and to remedy the injustice to Mr X.
59. Having reviewed the information provided I consider the Council handled Y’s case poorly. It passed his case from team to team and did not clarify or confirm which services would meet Y’s needs until it produced the EH Plan in July 2019. The Council spent almost a year in communications with Mr X while considering what support it may offer. And, it raised his expectations, only to cause him distress when it became clear it would not meet these. This amounts to significant fault causing injustice. I will recommend the Council provide a remedy to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty he has suffered.
60. The Council recognises the DCYP social worker should not have transferred the case to the CIN team and the CIN team gave unrealistic expectations as to what support the Council could offer. This is fault. I note the Council has taken action with managers to prevent recurrence. However, I consider it should also provide further training to relevant staff.
61. The Council assessed Y, identified his needs and considered how these needs could be met by itself or other services. Mr X considers the Council is at fault in refusing to meet Y’s needs. However, it is not within my remit to say the Council must provide support to Y. Rather, I must consider whether it followed a proper decision making process in deciding whether it could provide support to Y or how Y’s needs would otherwise be met.
62. An important part of the CIN Plan was for the Council to ask the Panel to consider funding overnight stays for Y at school. This did not mean the Council would necessarily fund these stays, only that it would consider this. Having reviewed the information provided, I am satisfied the Panel chair considered relevant information in deciding there were other options the family should try first, before a Panel discussion. I cannot say the Panel chair’s decision was right or wrong. Although Mr X has identified some errors in the information provided to the Panel chair, I am satisfied these did not affect the chair’s decision making. I therefore do not find fault in how the Council decided it would not fund overnight stays for Y.
63. The Council produced an EH Plan with Y and his mother and gave Mr X opportunity to comment. I note the EH Plan follows the CIN Plan except as to which services will meet Y’s needs. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council did not involve him more. However, I consider the Council did involve Mr X, by asking for his comments and sharing the EH Plan with him. I also note the Council provided reasons to justify liaising with Y’s mother in the first instance. I therefore do not consider the Council failed to follow its policy or failed to follow a proper decision making process.
64. The EH plan identifies Y can be supported by family, school, CAMHS and that the EH team would support Y’s mother. The Council did not identify any areas where it needed to provide support to Y itself. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with this and believes the Council should provide support to Y. However, I consider the Council took into account relevant information and followed a proper decision making process. I therefore cannot find it at fault. As the EH team had no role to play the Council closed the case and told Mr X. I find no significant fault by the Council.
65. Y’s EHCP says a social worker will support Y under the CIN Plan as the social care team considers appropriate and as required. This leaves it to the Council to decide what support is needed. I cannot say the Council failed to support Y as set out in his EHCP because the EHCP left it up to the Council to decide the support needed. I note the Council has since reviewed Y’s EHCP. The review process gives Y’s parents the chance to clarify or challenge the content of the EHCP if they wish.
66. The Council explained to Mr X it would expect Y’s parents to attend Activities Unlimited with him if needed. I appreciate Mr X wants Y to gain independence and take part in activities without support, however the Council considers Y’s school will help him gain independence. I cannot question the Council’s judgement in this regard simply because Mr X disagrees. The Council has taken account of Mr X’s views. I do not find fault in its decision making process.

Agreed action

67. To remedy the injustice set out above I recommend the Council complete the following actions within one month of the date of my decision:
• Provide Mr X with a written apology for the failings identified;
• Pay Mr X £100 for time and trouble;
• Pay Mr X £300 for distress and uncertainty;
• Take steps to ensure staff follow the statutory children’s complaints procedure unless there are exceptional reasons;
• Amend the Council’s literature to reflect the three stage statutory process;
• Provide training to relevant staff to ensure they provide realistic advice and information on the support available from children’s services and transfer cases to the correct teams.
68. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

69. I find the Council at fault in its handling of Y’s case and Mr X’s complaint. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman