Summary: Mr C wanted the Council to assess E for a service from the Disabled Children’s Service as it had assessed E’s older brother, who was receiving support. There is no evidence of fault in the Council refusing to assess E for a service from the Disabled Children’s Service as he has no diagnosis of a disability.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complains the Council failed to offer his son, E, an assessment from the Disabled Children’s Service. He said E met their criteria for support and needed the help that the service could offer. The Council agreed to assess E under Early Help, which Mr C refused.

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 considered the information Mr C submitted with his complaint including reports on E that were carried out by education and medical professionals. I also spoke to him on the telephone. I accessed information from MENCAP (‘the voice of learning disability’) online as well as the Council’s website. I sent Mr C and the Council a copy of my draft decision in order to take any comments they made into account before reaching a decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C has two children; D and E. D is disabled and is supported by the Disabled Children’s Service. Mr C says E has the same conditions and should also be supported by this service.
6. On its website, the Council says children, aged 0-18, can receive support from the Disabled Children’s Service if they have “a permanent or long-lasting disability (diagnosed by a doctor or consultant) and be severely or profoundly impaired”. E has been assessed as having autism although MENCAP points out; “Autism is not a learning disability, but around half of autistic people may also have a learning disability”. Mr C sent me a Council document about the eligibility criteria, which says; “Referral to the Disabled Children & Young People’s Service (DC&YPS) may be made for any disabled child/young person from birth up to age 18 years who is permanently resident within Kent County Council boundaries and whose disability is permanent or long term (for more than one year) and meets one of the severe or profound categories as described below”. This asks for the child’s needs in specific areas to be quantified and leads on from the website entry I highlighted above.
7. None of the reports sent by Mr C show that E has a current diagnosis of a learning disability although it is accepted he has a range of difficulties. The Educational Psychologist says that other people with E’s diagnosis have symptoms “include(ing) intellectual disability” but does not say E has this.
8. On the basis E does not yet have a diagnosis of disability, the Ombudsman has no grounds to ask the Disabled Children’s Service to assess him.
9. In an email exchange, the Educational Psychologist told Mr C that E may be diagnosed with a learning disability in the future. At that point, he would be entitled to a service from the Disabled Children’s Service. She suggested to Mr C that he ask how the Council might support E without this formal diagnosis.
10. The Council has agreed to assess E under its Early Help and Preventative Service, which could lead to additional support being put in place. Mr C says he was not offered an ‘assessment’ but someone coming to his home and talking about ‘strategies’ for managing E’s needs; he turned this down. If he wishes an assessment, the Council could reinstate this offer.
11. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Council has not acted with fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman