Summary: Ms Y complains the Council refused to assess both herself and her daughter, D, because it uses criteria which excludes those with Autism and has a confusing system which is difficult to access. There is no fault because the Council did assess Ms Y, and D now receives weekly support. However, the Council failed to respond to Ms Y’s complaint, but it has already apologised which is an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s actions in respect of the assessment and provision of support for children and young adults who have neurodevelopmental disabilities such as Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Ms Y also complains the Council has no system in place for assessing the potential needs of the parent or caregiver of the child or young person. In particular, she says:
1. The Council will not assess the needs of the parent or carer unless the child or young person has an allocated social worker;
2. If the child does not meet the criteria as a disabled person, as decided by the Disabled Children’s Team (DCT), the Council will not meet the needs of the parent or carer;
3. There is no system in place to request assessments and Ms Y had to formally complain in order to receive one;
4. Children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are not supported by the Council in the same way as those with physical or learning disabilities; and
5. The Council failed to investigate her formal complaint until the intervention of the LGSCO.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Ms Y and considered any information she provided.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
6. Ms Y 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

What happened

7. Ms Y’s daughter, whom I will call D, received a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in 2020. D also has Asperger’s, General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and social anxiety. As a result, D has struggled to access education in a mainstream setting and has received specialist provision as named in her Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) since September 2020.
8. The Council’s records show Ms Y made enquiries in January 2020 about a Parent Carers Needs Assessment (PCNA). Ms Y felt that she needed support because of her own health needs which are exacerbated by the caring responsibilities she has for both D and her elderly mother.
9. The Council sent Ms Y the PCNA form in January. Ms Y completed the form, along with a request for ‘short breaks’, and sent it back to the Council two days later. The Council put Ms Y’s request to its panel in February 2020 and they decided: “After careful consideration of all the information provided the panel feels that CAMHS [Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services] and Family Therapy are the most appropriate services for [D] right now. When this work is complete, it may be appropriate to consider a specialist Short Break”.
10. Ms Y received a letter in early February confirming the outcome. The letter also included information about other services which Ms Y could access for D.
11. Internal emails in May 2020 show the Council advised Ms Y to contact family support services to request an Early Intervention Single Assessment (EISA) as the Council felt this may be the best way to support D. The emails also show the Council’s discussions about D’s level of need and noted that she likely has learning disabilities but, as they did not manifest until the age of 15, it is unlikely they were moderate or severe.
12. Ms Y contacted the Council again in June 2020 asking how parents of children like D, who have no diagnosed learning disabilities, can receive an assessment. The officer dealing with Ms Y’s case said that a manager in the Disabled Children’s Team (DCT) agreed to assess Ms Y. They explained that PCNA are not usually done as a standalone exercise and normally accompany an EISA. The officer told Ms Y: “I must also advise that of itself, it [PCNA] won’t lead to provision of any particular service, but it may clarify what other sources of help/ support may be appropriate to signpost”
13. This is echoed on the PCNA form, which says, “In practice parent-carers’ needs will be addressed during the disabled child's assessment. In Calderdale we call this the Single Assessment”
14. In July 2020 the PCNA concluded with a recommendation for Ms Y to receive an assessment through ‘Gateway to Care’ due to her having a duel caring responsibility. Emails between the Council and Ms Y show that an officer advised her to approach the Adults Social Care team to request an assessment of the caring role she provides for her elderly mother.
15. Ms Y remained dissatisfied and in August 2020 she raised her concerns with the Council again. In September the Council’s DCT agreed to accept D’s case and complete a single assessment to ascertain what support the family needs. The assessment concluded on 30 September with a recommendation for D’s case to go back to the short breaks panel. This is because the social worker felt D would benefit from having the support of another person to attend group activities with.
16. The short breaks panel reconsidered D’s case and decided to grant six hours of support each week, year-round, to be funded by Direct Payments. The decision outcome letter advised Ms Y that the Council would review the case in six months’ time to see how the support is working for D. The letter sent to Ms Y said, “the budget for this would be £3,818.88 per annum which will purchase approximately 6 hours per week year-round but can be used flexibly to support [D] to achieve agreed outcomes.”

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Ms Y and D?

17. When responding to Ms Y’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it needs to review the PCNA process to ensure they are completed ‘as routine’ and that the Council explores the support it offers post-assessment. The Council also acknowledged failings in the way it handled Ms Y’s complaint; it wrongly closed the complaint without investigating and providing an outcome. The Council only responded when Ms Y approached the LGSCO, and we referred the complaint back to the Council.
18. However, the Council did not uphold the other aspects of Ms Y’s complaint. This is because the Council says it takes a multi-agency approach to all assessment requests and appropriately supports disabled children and children in need as per the requirements of the Children Act. Although Ms Y had concerns about the DCT not accepting D’s case initially, the Council felt that it retained discretion to decide how to organise its resources amongst teams and how to delegate its legal duties.
19. The Council explained that DCT is resourced to meet the needs of disabled children; this includes those with moderate or severe learning disabilities. The Council pointed out that support for other disabled children, including those with mild learning disabilities, is available through early intervention or wider social work teams.
20. I have considered Ms Y’s complaints to decide whether, in my view, there is evidence of fault by the Council in how it assesses young people with ASD and parents and carers who support them. Based on the information I have seen, I am not persuaded there is fault. Although the Council initially declined to support D, it reviewed the case when Ms Y contacted a family support worker. With the help of that officer, Ms Y completed another PCNA which contained more information about Ms Y and D.
21. Although D does not have a diagnosed moderate or severe learning disability, the records show DCT accepted the referral after the second PCNA and completed a single assessment in September 2020 which resulted in the provision of six hours of support each week. Therefore, I do not consider the records support Ms Y's claim that children with ASD do not receive the same level of support as those with moderate or severe learning disabilities. There is no evidence the Council fetters its discretion; to the contrary, Ms Y’s case demonstrates the DCT considers each case on its own merits. Not only is there no fault, but there is no injustice because D is now receiving funded support from the Council.
22. I have also considered Ms Y’s claim that the system is difficult to navigate, and the Council’s website is confusing and inaccessible. I have reviewed the Council’s Local Offer for children with special educational needs or disabilities. In my view, this page contains helpful information about requesting assessments and provides a leaflet outlining the process. I do not uphold this part of the complaint.
23. However, there is fault in the Council’s handling of Ms Y’s complaint because it failed to investigate and respond until the LGSCO’s intervention. The Council has already apologised for this oversight, and I consider this is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault in the substantive matter. There is fault in the Council’s complaint handling, but this has been appropriately remedied and there is nothing further for us to achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman