Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not financially reimburse him for respite care it agreed to provide for his disabled son Y. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to pay for respite care it had previously agreed to fund for his disabled son Y. He said that meant he had to pay £480 for the respite Y received.
2. Mr X is annoyed that the Council has reneged on its offer and would like it to reimburse his costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Mr X.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Support for children with disabilities

8. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are ‘in need’. A disabled child is a child in need. Councils can complete either an early help assessment or child in need assessment when assessing a disabled child’s needs.
9. The Council’s Children with Disabilities Service provides support to children and young people who require specialist support because they have a substantive and severe physical and/or learning disability; complex health needs; and/or severe Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Where children and young people are not assessed as needing this level of support, they are able to access services through the Council’s special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) local offer.

What happened

10. Y has epilepsy, autism and speech and language difficulties that mean he needs constant supervision at home and in public. In October 2019, when Y was 17, his parents contacted the Council asking for support. They said they both worked and needed help supervising Y after school and in school holidays.
11. The Council contacted its Children with Disabilities Service. It said it thought Y did not meet the threshold for its services, however agreed to complete a joint visit and allocated a social worker to complete a Children and Family assessment.
12. That assessment said Y accessed support from a charity for young people with learning disabilities; and that he participated in some community clubs. Because he was nearing 18, it identified a referral to adult social care would be needed as part of his transition to adult services.
13. The assessment did not assess Y as needing support as a child in need. However, it said Y and his family would benefit from further respite support through a referral onto other support services.
14. The Council contacted a local project that could work with Y weekly. It identified an external scheme where it could access funding for the project. The Council emailed Mr X on 18 February 2020 and said that he would need to pay a lump sum of £2450 to the project and the Council would reimburse the costs. It sent a further email two days later asking if he had made the payment to the project as the budget to reimburse him would close in March 2020.
15. Mr X made an initial payment of £285 that the Council reimbursed. He then paid the project a further £480 for support for Y. However, he requested reimbursement for that after the March 2020 deadline. The Council said it would not pay him the money as the funding for the project was only available until March 2020.
16. Mr X complained. He said the Council has agreed the support would be in place until Y’s 18 birthday in August 2020. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It accepted it had agreed to fund support until Y turned 18 but said it had told Mr X he needed to pay the project by the end of March 2020 for it to reimburse the costs.

My findings

17. Mr X said he understood the funding for Y’s support would be in place until August 2020, therefore, he could ask the Council to reimburse the costs up until that date.
18. However, the case records show the Council emailed Mr X in February 2020 and told him the budget to reimburse him for Y’s support would close in March 2020. As the Council explained that it would not make a payment beyond that date and as it was from external funding, I cannot be critical for the Council refusing to reimburse Mr X’s costs. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We find the Council was not at fault in its decision not to reimburse Mr X respite costs for his son Y. therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman