Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided that the complainant’s son was not eligible for direct payments.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council is refusing to award direct payments to fund respite care for her son, J, who has ADHD and autism. She says that as a result, she is unable to have a break from caring for J.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B’s son, J, has ADHD and autism. In May 2019, when J was ten years old, Ms B asked the Council about getting support for J with his social needs. The Council arranged for a Family Intervention Worker to meet with Ms B and complete an Early Support Record and Plan.
6. The worker carried out an assessment of J’s needs. She told Ms B that J’s social needs could be met by the groups and activities offered by the Short Breaks team. The outcome of the assessment was that J would be added to the mailing list for the Children with Disabilities Short Breaks Calendar, and that no further action was required. The worker told Ms B that direct payments would not be offered.
7. Ms B then complained to the Council that the worker had decided J was not entitled to direct payments.
8. In the Council’s response, it explained that the assessment had identified that respite would be of help to Ms B and so she was signposted to the Short Break Scheme. It said that it had also offered to arrange for a Children with Disabilities Co-ordinator to meet with her to look at alternative options, which Ms B had declined. The Council explained that there was no appeal process against the decision not to provide direct payments, but that if J’s needs significantly changed it would carry out a re-assessment.

Analysis

9. Children and young people who have a disability are entitled to an assessment of their needs.
10. The Council’s document, ‘Effective Support for Children and Families in Somerset’ details four levels of need: level 1 (universal), level 2 (additional), level 3 (complex) and level 4 (acute). The Council’s draft eligibility criteria states that only children identified as having level 3 or 4 needs are potentially entitled to direct payments.
11. I have considered the assessment of J’s needs. The assessment shows that Ms B’s main concern was J’s lack of social engagement with other children. The assessment also refers to Ms B feeling anxious and overwhelmed because J was out of education at the time. The worker referred Ms B to a Parent Carer Forum for support and advice and added J to the mailing list for the Short Breaks Calendar to address his social needs.
12. I have found no fault in the way the assessment was carried out and am satisfied that the Council did not consider J had level 3 or 4 needs. The Council properly followed its policy when it decided that J was not eligible for direct payments.
13. Parent carers have the right to an assessment of their needs. Councils must assess on the appearance of need, as well as on request, and must explicitly have regard to the wellbeing of parent carers in undertaking an assessment of their needs. The assessment of J’s needs shows that Ms B did not indicate that she needed support to care for J, and she did not request a carer’s assessment. If Ms B feels she needs support herself, she may wish to consider asking the Council for a carer’s assessment. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Final decision

14. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman