Summary: Ms X complains about poor services to her disabled child in the form of delayed assessment and loss of education. She says the Council took too long to investigate her complaint and that the remedy it has offered is inadequate. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to an enhanced financial remedy and a detailed apology.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complained about provision for her disabled son, B. Fifteen complaints were investigated by the Council. She now complains about the following:

1. Poor complaint handling, meaning it took 2.5 years for the complaint to reach the final stages.

2. The Council’s financial remedy offer - of £150 to recognise delay in providing an assessment and in the complaints process - is inadequate and no detailed apology has been made.

3. She objects to the following line in the Council’s final letter:

“As you are aware, the CFA assessment had no impact on this [SEN] funding”. She points out that the Council had repeatedly said that the education department could not deal with her son’s budget for his education until the assessment had been completed.

4. The final report recommended the council should acknowledge that it would not condone a particular worker’s threatening approach and would amend her son’s case notes to reflect that the worker was unsuitable. There has been no acknowledgement.

5. She has not received sufficient information on what has been removed from the case file. The Ombudsman’s position is that information should not be deleted or removal from social care records but that factual inaccuracies should be corrected and records should reflect the current position as regards allegations that are found to be unsubstantiated or unfounded. The Council has stated that information has been deleted but the complainant has not been provided with any detail.

2. The complainant seeks an apology detailing the mistakes made and the impact on herself and B, the acknowledgement detailed at point d), acceptance from the Council that its final letter was inappropriate and further financial compensation. She also seeks detailed information on what information has been removed from the case files in response to her complaints or details on what the Council has otherwise done to amend the files.

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 considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. I have shared this draft decision with both parties and have considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X’s son, B, who is now an adult, has Special Educational Needs (SEN). B had individual tutoring provided by a tutoring agency from 2015 to April 2018, which a month-long break in 2017.
7. Taking each complaint in turn:
1. Delay in complaint handling

This was dealt with during the Council’s process. Please see the section on remedy below.

b) Inadequate remedy

8. The Council offered £50 offered to remedy the delay in its complaints handling. It told me it calculated its financial remedy by consulting the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The Stage 2 and Stage 3 reports identified faults in the complaints process beyond delay. The Council has agreed to increased the remedy to £100 to compensate for distress caused by poor complaints handling as well as delay.
9. The Council provided £100 to remedy delay in providing a Child and Family Assessment (CFA). Ms X complained at Stage 3 that the delay to the CFA denied her family the ability to appeal a Council decision to remove 10 hours of respite care from B. The Council also promised at Stage 2 to send the CFA to Ms X by January 2020 but failed to do so. She pointed out that B was by now almost 18 so the CFA was of little use. These complaints were upheld at Stage 3. I do not consider £100 to be an adequate remedy for the injustice caused. The Council has agreed to increase the remedy to £200.
10. The Stage 2 Investigating Officer’s (IO) report upheld a complaint that the Council had delayed the provision of a SEN personal budget for six months. Ms X said B suffered a placement breakdown while waiting for the personal budget.
11. The Stage 2 IO also said the Council blamed Ms X for delay in providing the budget, stating that it had repeatedly asked her for reports and had met significant resistance. However the Council had provided no evidence for either statement. The IO recommended an apology. I consider this to be an insufficient remedy. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £200 to remedy faults related to the personal budget.
12. The Stage 2 report also found the Council had made statements about Mrs X without evidence. For example, it said there was clear evidence of internal Council communication “blaming” Mrs X for not encouraging her son to leave the house without evidence for this, though the Council denied there was such communication to the Stage 2 investigator. A Council report also suggested, without evidence, that Mrs X’s reasons for wanting a change in social worker were racist. The Council has agreed to write a letter of apology acknowledging that it holds no evidence to justify the comments above.
13. The IO also found further communication failures. The Stage 3 panel found other faults, including in relation to a thread of child protection proceedings. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £200 to remedy the distress caused by the additional faults identified by the IO and Stage 3 panel.

c) Objectionable line in complaint response

14. The Council told me it was correct to say that “the CFA assessment had no impact on this [SEN] funding”. It said B received SEN funding via a direct payment card prior to the CFA being completed and the conclusion of the CFA had no bearing on the funding B was receiving for SEN support. The Council said Ms X continued to receive SEN funds for B and that this was still in place.
15. However, the Stage 2 report notes that the SEN Panel held in February 2018 to decide on B’s personal budget took the view that a decision could not be made until the outcome of the social assessment.
16. Both parties are therefore technically correct. I find the Council is not at fault.

d) Acknowledgement about a third party worker’s approach

17. The Council said it was waiting for further evidence from Ms X which had not been received. I do not intend to investigate this further as in my view the personal injustice to Mrs X or B caused by the lack of acknowledgement is not sufficiently significant to warrant further investigation.

e) Deletions from the case file

18. The Council has provided information on changes made to the case file. I have forwarded this to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will:
1. pay Mrs X an additional £550 to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified at Stage 2 and 3; and
2. write to Mrs X to apologise for recording negative assertions about her (including allegations of perceived racism and failure to encourage her son to leave the house) without evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault, which the Council had identified prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. It has agreed to an additional financial remedy and letter of apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman