Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son’s needs and incorrectly determined she had other support available to her. We found the Council carried out the assessment in accordance with its policies and there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not follow the correct process and did not carry out a thorough needs assessment of her son, Y. She also complains the Council incorrectly took the view that she had other support available to provide day to day support, which was not accurate.
2. Miss X complains that caring for her son without support is causing difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered the information Miss X provided and the complaint she made. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
6. Mrs 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

The Council’s Procedures Manual

7. This sets out the purpose of assessments and the process for carrying out an assessment.
8. It says assessments are intended to gather information, assess needs and determine if support is needed to address needs. It notes it is important to understand a family’s support network and to consider if family members are able to provide the care needed. It also states it is important to recognise the demands on the family.
9. The Council’s guidance says an assessment should involve seeing or interviewing the child, interviewing parents, seeing the child and parents in the home environment and consulting with and considering information from other agencies. It states it is good practice to tell parents about issues in a timely, open and transparent way.
10. The key principles of a good assessment should cover parenting capacity, the child’s developmental needs and family and environmental factors. Outcomes may be; no further action, additional support through referral to ‘universal services’ (Tier Three services, available in the community), specialist referrals, a specific child in need plan and/or other actions related to safeguarding.

What happened

11. Miss X contacted the Council in January 2022 to request an assessment of her son’s needs.
12. On 27 January 2022 a social worker visited Miss X at home to begin an assessment. A second visit took place on 1 March 2022 when the social worker met Y’s father. The Council stated three visits took place in total. Notes made by the social worker on the Council’s systems recorded that over these visits she discussed Y’s needs with Miss X and Y’s father and discussed the difficulties in caring for Y. The records show that the social worker noted how Y presented and behaved at both visits.
13. The social worker noted the concerns being raised by Miss X and Y’s father. They explained Y was very active with little danger awareness and needed support 24/7 to meet his needs. The need for constant supervision meant Miss X found it difficult to manage while also working full-time. The notes stated Miss X has local support from the church and neighbours, but this was limited. Y’s father’s main worry was supporting Miss X and to receive more respite. He also wanted to ensure Y was supported as he was behind on developmental milestones.
14. On 7 March Miss X called to chase up the outcome of the assessment.
15. The Council’s records show that the social worker discussed the assessment with her manager on 7 March. These notes show that the Council believed support could be made available by referring Miss X and Y to community groups and other “Tier Three’ support, rather than meeting Y’s needs with specific respite care. They stated Tier Three support was not fully explored in the past, so they considered this was the appropriate route. The notes state Y now attended a special school, he was on a waiting list for the Community Team for People with Learning Disabilities (CTPLD) and had been referred to four other groups. The notes reflected that Miss X had a limited friend and family support network, but Miss X and Y’s father supported each other well.
16. The assessment was completed on 8 March 2022. I have not repeated the detail of the assessment here, however, it acknowledged the support Miss X needed to provide for Y with everyday activities like dressing, hygiene, brushing his teeth. It noted Y’s vocabulary was limited and the difficulties Miss X had supporting Y and his brother, while working. The report stated Miss X had a lot of support in place in respite such as from Y’s father and the church community and neighbours. It also noted Y had started a special school and this opened up opportunities for further support. The social worker’s assessment referenced various groups or organisations that could provide support. It determined Y’s parents should engage with Tier Three services and fully explore the support available from his school to help manage Y’s behaviours. The social worker considered these areas needed to be explored before greater Tier 4 support was considered.
17. The social worker called Miss X on 8 March to tell her about the recommendations. Miss X disagreed with the decision. She asked to appeal the outcome.
18. The Council’s records state an email was sent to Miss X on 9 March with a link to the complaints process. On 9 March an email was sent to Y’s father with links to services recommended in the assessment.
19. Miss X complained that the link she was sent was not correct and she had to ask another council officer to provide the correct one. She complained overall that the social worker had not properly assessed Y or understood his needs. She stated the social worker had not assessed Y himself, she had mostly talked to her and Y’s father. She considered the support offered was insufficient and would not help her manage day to day life caring for Y.

Was there fault by the Council

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
21. I have considered the Council’s policies and duties and the steps the organisation took to assess Y’s needs. While I understand Miss X disagrees with the outcome, there is no fault in how it took the decisions it did. Therefore, I cannot question whether those decisions were right or wrong.
22. I noted the information the Council took account of when deciding that Tier 3 support was appropriate. Although I note Miss X questions the social workers comment in the report that she has a lot support from neighbours and members of the church, I am satisfied that the council’s records show that officers were aware this was actually limited, with the majority of support being provided by Y’s father. Other notes on the council’s records evidence this. The Council took account of the relevant guidance, and information from Y’s school and his EHC plan when reaching its decision.
23. Because the Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision, I cannot therefore criticise it. It follows that I do not find the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council was not at fault. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman