Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her son Y’s care package and agreed the Direct Payments for his care needs. We found fault by the Council in its failure to consider Mrs X’s complaints through the statutory complaint procedure. But this did not cause her a significant injustice because the Council dealt with her concerns through its corporate complaint procedure. However, the Council took too long to in its investigation causing Mrs X frustration and time and trouble in chasing the Council for responses. The Council has accepted our recommended remedy in this case so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her son Y’s care package and agreed the amount of Direct Payments she received to fund his care needs. Mrs X says:
• The Council left her without Direct Payments (DP’s) for several months during a difficult time for the family in 2014.
• The Council stopped the DP’s without warning in 2016 and reduced Y’s care package.
• A social worker was intimidating and bullying towards her witnessed by another of her children causing Mrs X and the child distress.
• A Single Assessment document written in 2015 was inaccurate with other professionals pressurised into completing it.
• A form used by the Council gave an incorrect helpline number to call.
• The Council delayed in responding to her complaints about these matters.
2. Mrs X says the issues occurred while they were pursing an appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for a school place for Y and ill health within the family. So, the Council’s actions caused added stress to the family. Mrs X requests that, although the level of the care package has increased since 2016, the Council reinstates the care package to the time it was reduced in 2015. Mrs X also seeks compensation from the Council due to the impact onto her and her family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaints about the Single Assessment in 2015/2016, the Social Worker’s comments and actions and the Council’s decision to stop DP’s in early 2016. I have also considered the way the Council dealt with and considered Mrs X’s complaints about these matters from 2018 onwards. The final part of this statement explains my reason for not investigating Mrs X’s complaints the Council stopped DP’s in 2014 for a period and the impact on one of her children who witnessed a telephone call.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have read the papers submitted by Mrs X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
9. 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

The Council’s corporate complaints procedure

10. The Council registers a complaint at stage 1 of the complaint procedure and aims to respond within 20 working days. A person can then escalate a complaint to stage 2 if dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. Once the Council registers a stage 2 complaint an officer independent from the service complained about will make contact within 10 days to discuss the complaint and desired outcomes. A senior officer aims to respond with 25 working days. Although a complex case may take longer the Council will keep the person informed of progress and likely timescales.

Children’s social services complaints – statutory procedure

11. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review.

Key events subject to the complaint

12. Y lives with his parents and siblings and has a severe physical and learning disability. Y uses a wheelchair for mobility and is reliant on others for his care needs. The Council assessed Y as having care needs. Mrs Y paid for the care by using DP’s which gave her the flexibility to buy respite care and after school help for Y.
13. In September 2015 a social worker, Officer J asked to meet with Mr and Mrs X to discuss a Single Assessment (SA) and service package for Y as it needed reviewing in December 2015. An SA is a document that enables the Council to gather information on the needs and wishes of a child and family. The Council’s case notes record Mrs X wanted to wait until after the tribunal hearing before discussing the SA. Officer J told Mrs X the assessment was needed due to Y’s care package ending shortly. Officer J sent a completed SA to Mr and Mrs X in November 2015 reducing Y’s care package. Mrs X complained about the decrease. Officer J and a senior officer visited Mrs X to discuss her concerns about the SA. The Council agreed to a slight increase in the care package, but it was still less than the previous year’s amount.
14. Mr and Mrs X asked for an increase again, but the Council refused as it considered the package met Y’s assessed care needs. In April 2016 Mrs X asked the Council to reassess Y’s needs. Mrs X agreed to complete a Resource Allocation System (RAS) document used to help the Council calculate Y’s level of budget. The completed document went to a funding panel to agree Y’s budget for his package of support. The Council agreed to an amount that was more than the indicative amount shown by the RAS.
15. Mrs X remained unhappy with the amount and asked the Council to re-instate the 2015 budget. Mr and Mrs X gained place for Y at a school they wanted at the tribunal hearing. The Council reviewed Y’s budget due to the change in school placement and agreed an increase to Y’s care package. In November 2016, the case records note Mrs Y was happy with Y’s current care plan. In commenting on the draft decision Mrs X disagrees with the case records and says she was not happy with the care plan.
16. The case records show the Council continued to regularly review Y’s care package and in 2017 appointed a new social worker to Y’s case. The social worker completed a new SA in October 2017. Mrs X remained unhappy with the allocated amount. The Council responded it was already well over the indicative amount show in the RAS and there had been no significant changes in Y’s circumstances. So considered the amount enough for Y’s needs.
17. In 2019 Y’s case was allocated to the Disabled Children’s service. In September 2019, the funding panel agreed to maintain Y’s existing care package for a further 12 months until he qualified for Adult Care services.

Mrs X’s complaint to the Council

18. In January 2018 Mrs X complained to the Council about:
• Inappropriate comments Officer J made to her in 2015/16 making her feel undermined as a parent.
• Comments about Mrs X in the SA in 2015/16 by Officer J were distressing.
• The RAS documents in 2016 had a helpline number which Mrs X rang to find it was for a different Council.
• Y’s DP’s amounts have not always been correct and stopped without notice in 2016, so Mrs X did not have funds to pay Y’s carers.
• A new social worker completed a revised SA in 2018 but used the one by Officer J as a base causing upset to Mrs X. Mrs X expected the social worker to complete a new assessment.
19. Mrs X asked for a senior officer to review Y’s case, to meet with her and the DP’s reinstated for the time they were reduced. Mrs X wanted the Council to apologise for the way she had been treated.

Stage 1 complaint

20. A senior officer met with Mrs X to discuss her concerns in February 2018 and the Council responded at Stage one of its complaint procedure in May 2018. The Council:
• Apologised for any distress caused by Officers J’s comments. But as the officer no longer worked at the Council it was unable to follow this up.
• Confirmed Officer J should have shared a draft of the SA with Mrs X to allow her to comment before it was completed. But noted Officer J and a senior officer met with Mrs X to discuss her concerns at the time. The Council agreed to note on the assessment Mrs X did not agree with the analysis.
• Apologised for any confusion caused by the RAS form and it had corrected the issue.
• Apologised for any delays in paying the DP’s and any incorrect amounts. It agreed to review Y’s DP’s in case there were any amounts due to her in response to her wish for DP’s being reinstated for the time they were reduced.
• Recognised the new social worker in 2018 chose to revise the SA from 2015 and accepted the upset to Mrs X . It confirmed the new social worker had now completed a new assessment and a senior officer signed off a new support plan. The Council considered the new support was working well for Y.
21. The Council advised Mrs X she could discuss its response further and ask to progress to stage 2 of its complaint procedure if dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
22. The Council sent Mrs X the notes of the February 2018 meeting. Mrs X asked for a further meeting to discuss her complaints as she wanted to discuss the full reinstatement of Y’s original package of DP’s reduced in December 2015. Mrs X said the package had been gradually increased but not backdated.
23. The Council held a meeting with Mrs X in August 2018. During the meeting officers advised Mrs X DP’s are Council money given to her to buy support for Y according to the care package agreed with her. Officers said the Council had met its obligation to support her and paid more than the indicative amount Y was entitled to receive. The Council had paid her more in the past when Y’s placement had not been working and because of ill health in the family.
24. The Council agreed to look at the under and overpayments of DP’s in 2016, the SA in 2015 and to consider the impact of Officer J’s action on Mrs X. In November 2018 Mrs X asked for the minutes of the meeting held in August 2018 and an update of the agreed actions.
25. The Council wrote to Mrs X in January 2019 apologising for the delay in providing an update. The Council included an email from Officer J to Mrs X from February 2016 explaining the reason for not increasing Y’s DP’s then. It confirms the reduction in Y’s DP’s was due to a reassessment which concluded a multi-agency support plan was needed, alongside a lower level of short breaks.
26. The Council said:
• It had no record of writing to Mrs X in 2015/2016 to explain the DP’s would cease for a period to allow it to recoup an overpayment. The Council apologised for this and any confusion caused.
• It removed the 2015 SA from Council files and asked parties who received it to destroy it.
• It apologised again Officer J had not shared the SA with Mrs X at draft stage and for any distress caused. But declined Mrs X’s request for compensation and advised her to take legal advice.
27. The Council included a copy of the minutes of the August meeting and advised Mrs X she could escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the complaint procedure if dissatisfied with the response. Mrs X asked the Council for a further meeting.
28. The Council agreed to a further meeting as Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and wanted to discuss the distress caused to her by the Council’s action. During January to March 2019 the Council and Mrs X discussed possible dates. The Council held the meeting with Mrs X in April 2019.
29. Mrs X raised issues about DP’s in 2014 at the meeting. Officers agreed to investigate this issue. Mrs X also raised the issue of the impact of Officer J’s actions onto a child who witnessed a telephone call about the SA. The meeting noted Mrs X had passed the telephone to her child during the call who then spoke to the social worker. Officers considered Mrs X had exposed her child to her own upset and distress and should have perhaps acted to protect the child from her response to the call.
30. Mrs X chased the Council for a copy of the meeting notes in September 2019. Mrs X asked for a further meeting as she did not consider the Council had explained why the DP’s had stopped in 2015.
31. The Council wrote to Mrs X in October 2019 and apologised for the delay in replying. It declined Mrs X’s request for another meeting. The Council:
• Apologised again for any distress caused to her by Officer J’s comments but was unable to pursue the matter further as the officer no longer worked for the Council.
• Confirmed Mrs X’s DP’s did stop for a while in 2016 to allow for an overpayment. The Council apologised again it did not communicate with her then to explain this.
• Confirmed Mrs X’s DP’s also stopped in December 2014. This was because of a delay in the funding panel reviewing a request for DP’s to cover December 2014 to December 2015. The funding was agreed in March 2015, and the Council paid Mrs X a backdated payment to cover the 16 weeks. The Council apologised it did not communicate this to her at the time. The Council advised Mrs X she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.

Stage 2 complaint

32. Mrs X asked to go to stage 2 in November 2019. The Council told Mrs X in November 2019 it had a backlog of Stage 2 complaints and was dealing with them as quickly as it could.
33. Mrs X added to her complaint in December 2019. Mrs X remained unhappy about officer J’s comments and telephone call to her overheard by one of her children which caused distress. Mrs X considered she had not been told why the DP’s stopped in 2014 and a professional officer said she had been pressurised in to completing a report by Officer J. Mrs X raised some data protection concerns and sought compensation for her distress and damage to her health.
34. The Council responded to Mrs X complaint in March 2019. The Council:
• Confirmed officers had discussed the issue of officer J’s comments with Mrs X in previous meetings. It said it could not follow up Mrs X’s concerns with Officer J as she no longer worked for the Council. It apologised to Mrs X again for any distress Officer J’s comments had caused her.
• Explained again the situation with DP’s in 2014. The Council apologised for the lack of communication and was satisfied Y had not been financially disadvantaged.
• Confirmed that while Mrs X did not agree with the information in the SA, this was not a data protection breach. The Council apologised again Mrs X had not received a draft of the SA in 2015.
• Mrs X’s comments about the views of a professional officer and the way the officer had been treated was an issue for the Council to pursue directly with the officer as a professional matter so could not comment further.
35. The Council advised Mrs X again to approach her solicitors to contact the Council’s legal department if she wished to pursue a claim for compensation. The Council declined Mrs X’s request for compensation over her interactions with Officer J. The Council told Mrs X she had now exhausted its complaints procedure.
36. The Council has provided a copy of the payments made to Mrs X for Y from 2012 to 2016. It shows the DP agreements made and confirms there has been no gap in provision for Y.
37. In responding to my enquiries, the Council accepts it wrongly dealt with the complaint as a non-statutory complaint rather than as a children’s services complaint because of the subject matter. The Council apologised for doing so. The Council said if it received the complaint now it would reject the request to investigate the actions of the social worker. This is because it does not consider it possible to carry out a fair and effective investigation due to the time that has passed, and the officer no longer employed by the Council. It would however progress the complaint about the DP’s as its records are sufficient to be able to do so.

My assessment

38. The Council accepts it did not consider Mrs X’s complaints through the statutory complaint procedure. But rather dealt with them through its corporate complaint procedure. The Council’s failure to deal with Mrs X’s complaints through the statutory complaint procedure is fault. While it would have been better for the Council to do so I consider it has caused Mrs X limited injustice to warrant pursuing this issue further. This is because Mrs X has been able to put forward her concerns and they have been investigated by the Council.
39. The Council’s documents show it has investigated, taken relevant action, and apologised to Mrs X for the areas it has accepted there were errors in communication. I am satisfied the Council’s investigation was thorough, so I do not intend to reinvestigate the issues raised by Mrs X. This is because I do not consider I can add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council. The Council has apologised to Mrs X which I consider is suitable action for it to take, so I do not consider I can achieve anything further for Mrs X.
40. Although I consider the Council’s investigations thorough, the evidence shows it took a long time to complete them. I accept the Council was responding to Mrs X’s requests for meetings on some occasions. But there were significant gaps where Mrs X was chasing the Council for responses and action with the Council not responding within the timescales listed in its complaint procedure. I consider the delays fault by the Council. This is because it should have acted quickly to take the actions agreed in the meetings. And the Council could have managed Mrs X’s complaints and moved to stage 2 sooner as it was clear Mrs X disagreed with its response. This has resulted in an injustice to Mrs X as she has been caused frustration by the Council’s delays in responding to her during its investigations, and she has been put to time and trouble in pursuing her concerns.

Agreed action

41. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X I have identified in paragraph 40, the Council has agreed within one month of the date of my final decision, it will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the delay in carrying out its investigation into her complaint at stage1 and 2 of its complaint procedure.
• Pay Mrs X £150 to recognise her frustration over the delays in investigating her complaint and her time and trouble in pursuing her concerns further.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I am completing my investigation. There was fault by the Council in its failure to consider Mrs X’s complaint through the statutory complaint procedure, but this did not cause her a significant injustice because the Council dealt with her concerns through its corporate complaint procedure. However, the Council took too long in its investigation causing Mrs X frustration and her time and trouble in chasing the Council for responses. I have recommended a suitable remedy in this case.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate.

43. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaints raised during the Council’s investigation into her complaint that it stopped Direct Payments to her for a short period in 2014. This is because I consider it was open to Mrs X to have complained to us at the time about these matters. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate the issue now as it was not part of Mrs X’s original complaint to the Council. And the actions complained about happened too long ago for us to investigate now.
44. Mrs X remains concerned about the impact of one of her children witnessing her telephone call to Officer J. But I consider this is a separate complaint for the young person concerned to make. This is now due to their age as they will need to show they wish to make a complaint and, either pursue it themselves or give consent to Mrs X to pursue on their behalf with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman