Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had not properly considered her request for support from its Disabled Children’s team. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained the Council refused to properly assess her daughter (Y) for disabled children’s services. Mrs X said the Council had failed to assess her daughter as required under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)).

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. Councils therefore assess children to determine their needs.
7. In its response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council said it did not dispute that Y would be seen as a Child in Need under Section 17 of the Children Act. But it had decided Y did not meet the eligibility criteria for assessment by its Disabled Children’s team. This was because Y did not have needs that would be assessed as “severe” or “profound” using the Council’s eligibility criteria.
8. The Council explained it had instead referred Y for an assessment by its Early Help team. It said this approach complied with the law and an assessment by an Early Help worker constituted an assessment of need as required under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. In its response the Council referred to a recent court decision which said it was permissible for councils to decide some disabled children would be assessed through an early help assessment. The Council said the Early Help team could contact the Disabled Children’s team for advice if needed.
9. The Ombudsman is not right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We also cannot criticise a council’s decision if there was no fault in the decision-making process, and the Council has followed its own policies and any relevant legislation.
10. In this case the Council considered Mrs X’s request for an assessment and decided Y did not meet the criteria for an assessment by its Disabled Children’s team. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take. It instead decided to refer the case to its Early Help team for an assessment of need. Again, this is a decision the Council is entitled to take.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Early Help team will decide what support the Council will provide to Y. If Mrs X is unhappy with the outcome, she can make a fresh complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman