Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with social work assessments for her son, and how it dealt with her complaints about the matter. As a result she says she and her son have not received the support they need and she has incurred costs in providing a report. We find that the Council carried out the latest social work assessment properly. There was some fault in earlier assessments which was unlikely to have affected the outcome. We recommend that the Council remind relevant staff across all social work teams of the need to consider and record whether the child involved in an assessment is a disabled child.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to deal adequately with her complaints about lack of social care support for her and her son, Y, from January 2018. The complaints were considered under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. As a result she says she and her son have not received the support they need. Also the Council has refused to cover costs of a medical report and legal advice she says she needed to ensure the Council carried out a social care assessment.
2. Ms X has made several complaints to the Council. The two complaints dealt with under the children’s social care complaints procedure which I am considering in this investigation can be summarised as follows
• Complaint A: that the authorities, including the Children with Disabilities team, refused to assess her son and discriminated against her family. She also complained that the Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health Service (EWMHS) made an inappropriate referral to the Council about safeguarding issues rather than providing services to support her son.
• Complaint B: that the Council’s social work assessment in November 2020 was inadequate because it did not include a carers assessment, made an incorrect reference to a history of sexual abuse, and recommended support that did not meet her or her son’s needs.

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 cannot question whether an organisation’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, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 an organisation’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 discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I considered relevant law, guidance and policy on provision of support for children.
8. I decided to exercise discretion to investigate events dating back more than one year as these were covered in Complaints A and B. I have not investigated the complaint about the actions of the EWMHS because the Ombudsman has already investigated this issue as part of a previous complaint against the Council and the relevant health trust. I am investigating the Council’s actions only.
9. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child in Need

10. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. A disabled child is a child in need. (Children Act 1989, section 17(1)(c))
11. The definition of a disabled child includes a child who “suffers from mental disorder of any kind or is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity”. (Children Act 1989, section 17(11)
12. Local authorities undertake assessments of the needs of the child to determine which services to provide and what action to take. Statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (‘Working Together’) outlines an assessment framework for councils to use. Assessments should look at:
• the child’s developmental needs, including their health and educational needs and their family and social relationships;
• the parents’ or carers’ parenting capacity; and
• family and environmental circumstances such as family history, income, housing, social networks and access to community support.
13. The expectation of ‘Working Together’ is that an assessment which identifies significant needs will generally lead to the provision of services, but it not the case that there is a duty to meet every assessed need.
14. If a parent carer of a disabled child in need requests it, the local authority must assess whether the parent has support needs and, if so, what those needs are. This is known as a parent carer assessment. The local authority may combine the assessment with an assessment of the needs of the disabled child. The assessment must consider:
• whether the parent carer has needs for support in relation to the care which they provide or intend to provide;
• whether the disabled child cared for has needs for support;
• whether those needs could be satisfied (wholly or partly) by services which the authority may provide under section 17; and
• whether or not to provide those services. (Children Act 1989, section 17ZD/E)
15. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act (CSDPA) 1970, section 2, requires councils, when undertaking an assessment of a child under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, to consider whether it is necessary to provide support of the type referred to in section 2.
16. Where the council is satisfied it is necessary to provide services under section 2 of the CSDPA, they may include:
• practical assistance in the home including home based short breaks/respite care;
• recreational/educational facilities including community based short breaks; and
• travel and other assistance.
17. If the Council decides it should offer services to meet needs identified in a section 17 assessment, it may offer funding to pay for those services, rather than arranging the service itself. This is known as a direct payment.
18. Under the Council’s ‘Local Offer’ direct payments may be used for:
• Employing a personal assistant for the child
• Community activities
• Short residential breaks
• Support with the child’s personal care.

Children with Disabilities Team

19. The Council has a Children with Disabilities (CWD) Team within its Children’s Social Care service. It has criteria for deciding which cases to accept for assessment and provision of services by the CWD Team.
20. The Council’s description of the eligibility criteria says it works to the definition of a disabled child in the Children Act 1989. It also refers to the duties under section 2 of the CSDPA.
21. The CWD Team will carry out an assessment in certain circumstances including where the child has:
• a substantial/severe learning disability;
• a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum disorder (ASD) where this affects the child’s developmental progress significantly;
• multiple disabilities/difficulties: a combination of disabilities that individually may not be regarded as severe.
22. The policy says the CWD Team will not routinely work with:
• a child with social, emotional and behavioural, mental health or wellbeing difficulties;
• a child with a diagnosis of ASD where there is no associated learning disability and/or any significant impairment of the child’s developmental progress.
23. It says where a child with ASD but without a learning disability also has a mental health diagnosis, the Council will signpost them to the Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health Service (EWMHS).

Statutory children’s social care complaints procedure

24. There is a three-stage procedure under the Children Act 1989 for considering complaints about children's social care services. The council appoints an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) to investigate and an Independent Person to oversee the investigation at stage 2. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome they can take the complaint to a stage 3 Review Panel. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Background

25. Ms X is a single parent whose youngest son, Y, now aged 16, has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. He has had an Education, Health and Care Plan since mid-2018. Ms X’s other children were also diagnosed with autism. Y became reclusive. He stopped attending school and would not leave the house, or for the most part come out of his room. He received home tutoring (through a closed door) since he stopped attending school. Y became increasingly reclusive following a significant family trauma and bereavements in 2020. He receives private therapy, arranged by Ms X.

Outline history of social work assessments

26. The following account refers to key events necessary for me to come to a view on the complaint. It is not intended to cover everything that happened.
27. Following Ms X’s request for support for Y, the Council started a social work assessment in January 2018. The social worker was unable to involve Y in the assessment as he would not come out of his room, because of his anxiety. The outcome of the assessment was a decision that there was no role for Children’s Social Care, and the main concern was Y’s mental health difficulties. The Council did not consider the criteria for a service from CWD was met. It made a referral to EWMHS for support and treatment.
28. Because of concerns about Y’s lack of engagement with education, the Council offered support from its Early Help service in May 2018. I understand that Ms X declined, and asked for support from the CWD Team. Ms X also paid for a private mental health assessment for Y in August 2018. This confirmed the autism diagnosis and identified a possible anxiety disorder.
29. In January 2019 EWHMS made a referral to Children’s Social Care because of concerns about lack of any significant improvement in Y’s mental health condition. The Council reviewed the case and decided to carry out a social work assessment. It also received a safeguarding referral from EWMHS raising concerns about Ms X’s parenting capacity and what it considered was her unwillingness to follow professional advice from its service.
30. The Council carried out a social work assessment, this time after having a discussion with Y. It completed the assessment in March 2019. The outcome was that there were no concerns about safeguarding or Ms X’s parenting. The Council did not consider Y or the family would benefit from the input of a social worker. It decided there was no role for Children’s Social Care, as the main issue for Y related to his mental health and so EWHMS was the appropriate body to continue providing support. The Council the closed case. The Council says Ms X agreed with this decision.
31. The Council received a further safeguarding referral from EWHMS in August 2019. It also advised that the relationship with Ms X had broken down. Ms X told the Council she felt she should have support for Y from the CWD Team.
32. The Council carried out another social work assessment, which included a visit to the family home to see Y in person. The Council completed the assessment in September with the same outcome as previously. The Council found no further role for Children’s Social Care as there were no safeguarding concerns or signs of parental neglect, and the main need was for mental health support.
33. Following the assessment there was correspondence and telephone contact between Ms X and the Council about access to the CWD Team. Ms X did not agree with what EWMHS were offering, and she felt Y needed specialist support because of his social isolation and autism. She said she wanted consultation and support but was not asking for respite or financial help. The Council said the Team was not the right service to support Y’s mental health needs and he did not meet the eligibility criteria for the CWD because he did not have learning disabilities.
34. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council in early November 2019 about the lack of support from the CWD Team and the safeguarding referrals from EWMHS. This is Complaint A referred to in paragraph 2 above. Ms X was not satisfied with the outcome at stage 1 and in late November 2019 she asked to go to stage 2.
35. In mid-July 2020 the family suffered another trauma and bereavement.
36. In late August the Council received a report of a mental health assessment of Y by a psychiatric hospital (‘the Hospital’) which Ms X had obtained. The report made recommendations about continued therapeutic support, occupational therapy and gradual reintegration into education. It also recommended that the family should be referred for “urgent assessment by social care and other relevant agencies to help ensure increased support within the family home”. The Council decided to review the report to see if Y met the CWD criteria.
37. The Council held a multi-agency professionals meeting. It decided Y did not meet the CWD criteria as the “presenting issues were perceived to be linked to his mental health”. It decided to allocate the assessment to the Assessment and Intervention Team within Children’s Social Care. Ms X was not happy with this decision. Her view was that unless the assessment was carried out by the CWD Team there would be no budget to provide the support needed. The Council told her it made no difference which team dealt with the assessment as it would still be considered under section 17. Ms X did not give her consent for the assessment to continue as she wanted the CWD Team to conduct it.
38. In mid-September 2020 Ms X told the Council she would like direct payments and access to a respite budget from the CWD Team.
39. Ms X then obtained an independent medical report from a Child and Adolescent Consultant Psychiatrist, ‘Dr P’ following an assessment of Y. She provided the Council with a copy in October 2020. Dr P’s diagnosis was “ASD, anxiety, school phobia and ADHD to be explored later”. The report recommended that Y should be taken on by the CWD Team “as he is a child that is clearly presenting with significant disability”. As well as weekly therapy for help with anxiety the report recommend a graded programme to help Y become more able to leave the home, occupational therapy support to help him with exposure to the outside world, and support from the CWD team.
40. At the end of October the Council decided to undertake an assessment by a social worker from the CWD Team. The social worker completed the assessment in December. The outcome was a recommendation for a ‘moderate’ direct payment to enable Y to have a Personal Assistant to act as a mentor or befriender to help him go out into the community and give some respite to Ms X. The recommendation was to be referred to the Resource Allocation Panel for a decision about a care package. I look at this assessment in more detail later in this statement.
41. Also in late October Ms X’s solicitor sent the Council a Letter before Action about lack of support to the family and challenging the eligibility criteria the CWD Team operates, saying they were unlawful. The solicitor argued that the Council was restricting support to children with physical disabilities only and preventing access to support such as short breaks for those who did not come within the CWD Team. The letter threatened legal action unless the Council confirmed within 14 days it would change the eligibility criteria and carry out a new children and family assessment including an assessment of Ms X’s needs as a parent carer.
42. The Council responded, disputing that the CWD eligibility criteria were unlawful. It said all social workers the Council employs are qualified and competent to undertake assessments. Children with disabilities were allocated across all service areas, not just the CWD team. It confirmed it accepted that both Ms X’s children were disabled children. It also confirmed that the report from the Hospital led to the Council seeking to assess Y and his family, including Ms X as his parent and carer, under section 17. It said the report from Dr P provided further information about Y's needs resulting in the decision to allocate the assessment to the CWD team.
43. After receiving the social work assessment Ms X made a complaint about it as she did not agree with information it contained. This was Complaint B. Ms X’s view was that the report was inaccurate and misleading, and did not offer any support or address her needs as a carer.
44. The social worker offered to visit to discuss any factual inaccuracies in the report. Ms X responded saying Y did not want to speak to Children’s Social Care any more and felt the Council did not want to support him. The Council says it regarded this as a withdrawal of consent to proceed with the recommendations of the assessment. My understanding is that the recommendation for support did not go to the Resource Allocation Panel and Ms X has not agreed to a meeting to discuss the factual inaccuracies she referred to.
45. Both complaints went through the three stages of the children’s social care complaints procedure. The Council kept the case open during the investigations.

How the Council dealt with complaints A and B

Complaint A – refusal to assess Y, discrimination, and the EWMHS safeguarding referral

46. Throughout the complaint the Council maintained its position that the CWD criteria were not unlawful, it had not refused to assess Y but had carried out assessments, and it had not discriminated against Y. It said all social workers from no matter which team can carry out section 17 assessments. There was no duty on councils to have a CWD team and it is for the Council to decide how to allocate assessments between teams. It said around September 2020 it had reviewed the legality of the threshold criteria and Legal Services advised it was lawful. It said the advice to the Council came from a “very experienced childcare lawyer”.
47. The stage 2 investigation report and stage 3 Review Panel largely agreed with this stance and found that the Council had dealt with the referrals appropriately.
48. The stage 2 Investigating Officer and the stage 3 Panel confirmed the question of the EWMHS safeguarding referrals was outside the scope of the children’s social care complaints procedure as it was about a health body. However there was a recommendation, which the Council accepted, to raise the issue with EWMHS at its next meeting with the service.
49. At the Review Panel hearing, which was delayed and held remotely because of COVID-19 restrictions, Ms X referred to the quality of the assessment carried out in November 2020. The Panel suggested Ms X could ask the Council to correct any factual inaccuracies and she could make a complaint about the assessment.
50. Ms X said she had paid £1800 for a private assessment and wanted the Council to reimburse the cost to her. In the Panel’s recommendations it said it did not know whether the assessment by the CWD Team was a result of the private assessment Ms X had paid for. It recommended the Council look into the matter and consider reimbursing the cost if it found this was the case.
51. The Panel also recommended improvements to the way the Council dealt with complaints under the statutory complaints process.
52. On receiving the Review Panel’s report Ms X wrote to the Council saying the findings were flawed as she had to pay £1800 to a solicitor to demand an assessment. She said “this is what got the ball rolling”.
53. In the final response letter from the Council in mid-June 2021, it did not uphold the complaint. It repeated its position that Y was assessed appropriately as a child in need because of his diagnosis of autism but did not meet the threshold for service from the specialist CWD team.
54. The Council said Ms X had clarified the payment she wanted was to cover the cost of solicitor’s fees. It did not agree to reimburse these costs as it said it had conducted an assessment, even though not by the CWD team, and it was Ms X’s choice to pay for legal advice.
55. The Council agreed with the recommendations about improvements in complaint handling and said it was developing training and guidance.

Complaint B – quality of the assessment by the CWD Team

56. Ms X complained in April 2021 that the report of the assessment was incomplete, full of inaccuracies and assumptions, failed to assess the family’s needs fully, provided no carer’s assessment, and claimed there was a history of sexual abuse in the family which was not true.
57. In the Council’s stage 1 response it did not agree the assessment was flawed. It said the assessment did identify a need for services for Y and included a parent carer assessment. However it said Ms X then withdrew her consent and so the process halted. Regarding the comment about an incident of sexual abuse, it said this was about a comment made by one of Ms X’s children in a previous assessment. But if she disputed it, the Council would note this on the file.
58. Ms X’s complaint at stage 2 was as follows:
• The assessment did not include a carer’s assessment.
• The assessment stated there was a history of sexual abuse in the family which is not true.
• The recommendation for two hours a week mentoring for Y does not meet his needs.
• The assessment does not adequately reflect the impact on Ms X of her caring responsibilities.
59. The Stage 2 report set out the background to the assessment. It noted that after receiving the medical report confirming Y’s diagnosis of ASD, anxiety and school phobia, the Council carried out the single social work assessment from November to December 2020. It said Ms X complained about the quality of the assessment but said she did not want Y to be placed on a Child in Need plan. She wanted direct payments for domestic help, gym membership, respite care and trauma therapy.
60. The IO did not uphold the complaint and did not find the assessment was flawed. The main findings were as follows:
• The single social work assessment included a carer’s assessment and considered Ms X’s needs as a parent carer even if it did not result in the outcome she wanted.
• The reference to sexual abuse was a quote from case records as part of the chronology, rather than part of the assessment itself.
• The recommendation for two hours of mentoring a week for Y, was based on Dr P’s expert report. There was no evidence the recommendation was inappropriate or that the Council could not be trusted to arrange a mentor.
• The assessment did include details of the pressures Ms X was under. The next step would have been to progress to the Resources Panel to discuss her needs and request for support as a carer.
61. Looking at Ms X’s desired outcomes the IO said that to progress the request for a mentor and support for her there would need to be a Child in Need plan and discussion at the Resources Panel. It said Ms X had already had a carers assessment. It disagreed with the request for the Council to reimburse the £1800 fee she was looking for.
62. The Review Panel hearing took place in November 2021. The report made no change to the Stage 2 findings on the outcome of the social work assessment and agreed it had included a carer’s assessment.
63. The Panel found the wording in the chronology about sexual abuse was not as described by Ms X. But it said it would have been good practice to discuss the comment with her before putting in report. The report also notes that the Council offered to discuss any inaccuracies with Ms X.
64. At the hearing Ms X said what she wanted was the £1800 reimbursed. She clarified this was for the fees for the solicitor’s letter, which she said resulted in the Council agreeing to an assessment by the CWD team.
65. In the Council’s final decision letter on the complaint in mid-December 2021 it said:
• It did not agree to reimburse the cost of the solicitor’s fee. Its position remained that all social workers in Children’s Social Care are qualified to undertake statutory Child in Need assessments, and it was Ms X’s choice to go to a solicitor to demand an assessment specifically by the CWD Team.
• The Data Protection Team was currently reviewing amendments Ms X wanted regarding the sexual abuse comment and would respond to her before Christmas.
• Services offered to support Y and Ms X as his carer were still available to her.

Analysis

66. I recognise that Ms X and her family have experienced traumatic events which have impacted on Y’s mental health. Ms X has had to cope with these events as well as the stresses and strains of her caring role. My role is not to decide what care and support her family should receive but to look at how the Council dealt with the assessments and Ms X’s complaints about them.
67. Ms X complained that the Council refused to carry out social work assessments of Y’s needs. It is clear from the above history and the evidence I have seen that the Council did undertake assessments. Ms X’s concern is that until October 2020 the Council did not agree to allocate the assessments to a social worker from the CWD Team. Her view is that this decision was based on unlawful criteria for accessing the service which discriminate against children and young people with non-physical disabilities. She also complains that the assessment by the CWD social worker was flawed.
68. The Council defended its position on the lawfulness of the CWD eligibility criteria based on legal advice it received in response to the Letter before Action by Ms X’s solicitor in October 2020. The Ombudsman cannot resolve legal disputes or provide definitive interpretations of the law: that is a matter for the courts.
69. However I do not consider the Council at fault in saying it is not under a duty to have a CWD Team and it is for the Council how it decides to allocate cases between its social work teams. The key issue is whether it properly follows the law, statutory guidance and its own policies when it carries out a section 17 assessment, regardless of which team the social worker involved is based in. The Ombudsman has no power to question the outcome of an assessment if it was done properly.
70. I have therefore looked at how the Council carried out the assessment before it agreed to refer it to the CWD Team, why it made the decision to make that referral, and how it carried out the assessment after it had done so.

Assessment before referral to the CWD Team

71. The report of the social work assessment in September 2019 shows it followed the proper process and took account of relevant matters. The social worker spoke to Ms X and to Y, considered the concerns raised in the safeguarding referral, and obtained the views of professionals involved with Y. It looked at the risks and protective factors. It took the view that Y’s problems arose mainly from his mental health difficulties and he was receiving therapy and so it did not consider there was a need for intervention by Children’s Social Care. As the Council carried out proper enquiries, weighed up the evidence and explained the reasons for its decision I do not have grounds to criticise the outcome of the assessment.
72. However I have concerns that the assessment report noted there was ‘no disability’. This contrasts with the report of the social work assessment carried out in November/December 2020 by the CWD social worker. That report notes the assessment was a “s.17 needs assessment for a disabled child”. It notes the disability as “diagnosed with Autism or Asperger’s syndrome, notified on 30 October 2020. The date refers to the date the Council received Dr P’s report. However the Council was aware of the diagnosis from August 2018 when it received the report of the private mental health assessment from Ms X. If this diagnosis was the reason for deciding Y was a disabled child, then it should have been noted on the September 2019 social work assessment report as well. In my view the failure to do so was fault.
73. I cannot say this made a difference to the outcome of the September 2019 assessment as my view is the assessment was carried out properly. But it might in some cases have implications for support provided. A child may have a disability but not meet the Council’s eligibility criteria for a service from the CWD Team. The assessment may be carried out by a social worker from another team. Given that the definition of a disabled child includes one with a ‘mental disorder of any kind’, failing to record a disability means, in my view, that potential support to a disabled child under section 17 or section 2 of the CSDPA could be missed. Noting the disability would alert the social worker to this possibility.

Decision to refer to the CWD Team

74. The evidence I have seen, including in case notes and correspondence, indicates to me that the referral to the CWD Team to carry out the latest social work assessment was prompted by the report Ms X obtained from Dr P. For example in the section of the report describing the reason for the assessment it says the decision to undertake it in the CWD Team was a result of Dr P’s assessment and recommendations. The Council disputes this and Ms X does not agree either. Her view is that the allocation to the CWD team was a result of the threat of legal action. However there is no need for me to investigate this issue further as Ms X says she has had the cost of the report reimbursed by the health trust. So there is no need for me to make any recommendations about the matter.
75. In response to my draft decision Ms X has confirmed that what she is looking for is reimbursement of her legal fees for the Letter before Action her solicitor sent the Council in late October 2020. She says she had been pleading for an assessment by the CWD Team for years and it was only after the threat of legal action that the Council agreed. I have explored this issue further. The Council has provided a detailed explanation as to why it agreed to refer the assessment to the CWD Team and that it was not prompted by the threat of legal action. It says it made the decision before it received the solicitor’s letter. In light of the Council’s evidence and explanation I do not consider I am in a position to recommend that the Council reimburse Mrs X’s legal fees. I have not seen sufficient evidence to indicate that the decision to refer the case to the CWD Team was a response to the solicitor’s letter.

Social work assessment by the CWD Team

76. Looking at the assessment itself, I do not see evidence of fault in the way it was carried out. The report shows that as part of the assessment the social worker visited Ms X and Y at home, spoke to Y over the telephone and contacted him by email. It noted his views. The assessment covers the background history of the family, and Y’s mental health problems and the support he received. It looked at the wider family, risks and protective factors, and took account of views of mental health and educational professionals involved with Y. It considered Dr P’s recommendations.
77. There is clear evidence that the social worker spoke to Ms X about the pressures of her caring responsibilities, the impact on her and the support she would like for herself and Y. Ms X said she would like direct payments for trauma therapy, for family gym membership, domestic help and anything else to support her as a carer. The assessment report noted concerns found in previous assessments about Ms X’s emotional wellbeing and recommended she seek counselling in relation to the losses she has suffered.
78. There is no requirement to have a standalone carer’s assessment and the evidence shows it was incorporated into the single social work assessment and considered Ms X’s needs as a parent carer.
79. In my view it was a thorough assessment taking account of relevant matters in line with the Working Together guidance. The recommendation for direct payments for mentoring support for Y took account of Dr P’s recommendation for support for Y to help him engage with the community and start to end his social isolation. The Council’s assessment was that this would also provide Ms X with an opportunity to take a break and have time to pursue activities for herself. I recognise that Ms X considers the offer inadequate, but I cannot criticise the outcome of the assessment if I do not see evidence of fault in the way it was carried out.
80. However I have not seen evidence of any specific reference to two hours of mentoring. As far as I can see Dr P’s report did not specify the amount of support needed. My understanding is the matter did not go to the Resource Panel for allocation of funding. So it is not clear how the Council decided how much support to offer. I make a recommendation in relation to this issue in the next section.
81. Ms X says there are inaccuracies in the report but I do not know the details. The Council has offered to go through the report with her and correct any factual inaccuracies. This is a suitable offer. If Ms X disagrees with any views expressed in the report, the Council should add her views to the file.

Back to top

Agreed action

82. The Council has agreed that it will take the following action within one month of the decision on this complaint.
• Remind social workers carrying out child and family assessments across all teams that if there is evidence that the child is disabled as defined in the Children Act 1989, it is noted in the assessment report. This will alert the Council to the possibility that it may need to provide services to a disabled child under section 17, or under section 2 of the CSDPA.
• Provide evidence to Ms X and the Ombudsman of where the offer of two hours support comes from and if there is none, review the offer to see if it is satisfied it is a suitable offer.
• Repeat the offer to Ms X to consider any factual inaccuracies she has found in the social work assessment. If the Council considers any corrections on factual points make a difference to the outcome, it should review its conclusions.

Back to top

Final decision

83. I have not found fault in the way the Council carried out the CWD assessment, but I find it was at fault in failing to record Y’s disability in earlier assessments in line with the evidence it received. It also failed to demonstrate how it decided on the amount of support offered. I am satisfied with the remedial action the Council has agreed to take and so I have completed my investigation.
84. 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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman