Summary: Ms M complains a social worker misrepresented her son’s needs in a social care assessment. There is no fault in the Council’s assessment. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains a social worker misrepresented her son’s needs in a social care assessment. She complains the Council does not provide enough support.

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 how the organisation made its decision, 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. I have considered information provided by Ms M and the Council. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms M has two children. The Council provides support in the form of direct payments so Ms M can employ a carer to provide respite.
6. The Council uses a resource allocation questionnaire to calculate an indicative budget. The Council paid £6,500 in 2021 and £7,500 in 2022.
7. In 2023, the resource allocation questionnaire gave an indicative budget of £4,500. Nevertheless, the Council agreed a budget of £7,500 so Ms M could continue to pay for a childminder to look after the children until she completed her studies. I understand Ms M was using the money from the Council and a university grant to pay for a childminder to look after her children while she was studying.
8. Ms M believes the Council does not provide enough support. In the absence of an appeals process to challenge the amount of support offered, Ms M made a formal complaint.
9. Ms M complained the social worker misrepresented her son’s needs in the 2023 assessment. She said the social worker “lied”. Ms M says her son’s communication skills are not as good as the social worker said.
10. The Council responded to Ms M’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. The Council did not uphold Ms M’s complaint. Nevertheless, the Council offered a different social worker in the hope of building a better relationship with Ms M.
11. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms M complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

12. Councils are required to provide services to assist the carers of disabled children to continue to provide care, or to do so more effectively, by giving them breaks from caring. The services are often referred to as ‘short breaks’.
13. Legislation and regulations set out the Council’s duties.
14. Councils can provide money instead of services if a parent chooses. This is known as ‘direct payment’.
15. As the carer of disabled children, Ms M is eligible for short breaks to assist her to continue to provide care.
16. Ms M complains the social worker misrepresented B’s needs in the 2023 assessment. She says the social worker said B could communicate using PECS and Makaton. Ms M says this is “a lie”.
17. I have carefully considered the 2023 single assessment and resource allocation questionnaire. These documents record Ms M’s views, the social worker’s views and the views of the Panel that decided how much support to provide.
18. The documents clearly record B’s communication difficulties.
19. Following a visit, the social worker noted B expresses his views using “Makaton, gesture and hand holding as well as some behaviours that could result in hurting others.”
20. The Panel noted B “is able to communicate on a basic level with those he is familiar with, and PECS and Makaton are used at home and school with some level of understanding.”
21. The resource allocation questionnaire uses “descriptors” to evaluate need.
22. A child needing “some support” can express some of his needs, wants and views with support and/or a communication system such as Makaton or PECS but it may be necessary for others to check they have understood. The child will need specialist support to communicate, such as a Speech & Language Therapy programme.
23. A child needing “lots of support” is non-verbal and unable to consistently express his needs, wants and views.
24. The Panel rated B’s needs as being halfway between “some support” and “lots of support”.
25. There is no fault in the social worker’s description or the Panel’s assessment. We cannot question decisions taken without fault.
26. For completeness, I asked to see the scores used to calculate the amount of support offered. Even if the Council had awarded the maximum score for B’s communication needs, the personal budget would have been the same.
27. I do not, therefore, uphold Ms M’s complaint the social worker misrepresented B’s communication needs, or that this influenced the amount of support offered.
28. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms M complained the Council had reduced the level of support for B. She said the social worker had overstated the amount of childcare support she had. She said B needed two-to-one care and she had difficulty finding childminders willing to look after him.
29. The Council has not reduced the amount of support for B.
30. The assessment notes Ms M had the services of a childminder on 3 or 4 days a week. Ms M funds the childminder with the direct payment and the childcare grant. The assessment does not misrepresent the level of support.
31. Ms M did not complain to the Council that B needs two-to-one support.
32. Nevertheless, I asked how the Council satisfied itself the direct payments were sufficient to secure the respite it decided Ms M needed. I was expecting the Council to send me calculations based on the number of hours respite it decided Ms M needed and the expected cost.
33. The Council did not send me the calculations I expected.
34. Instead, the Council explained the support offered was agreed by a manager who no longer works for the service and was based on Ms M’s need to top-up her childcare grant to pay for the childminder while she studied. The Council agreed to make the payments for the duration of Ms M’s studies. The Council pays considerably more than it would if it was paying for short breaks alone.
35. Ms M says a reduction in the childcare grant has left her unable to secure sufficient respite. The Council is not responsible for childcare costs, and the reduction in the childcare grant is not, therefore, relevant.
36. However, if the top-up agreement no longer works for Ms M, it may be time to re-consider the arrangement and the direct payments. I note it is almost 12 months since the last assessment. This would seem to be an appropriate time to re-consider B’s needs and the support the Council provides. Ms M sent me recent evidence of B’s needs which she could ask the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have ended my investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s assessment. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. However, it appears an agreement which allowed Ms M to use direct payments to pay for a childminder may no longer be working. As it is almost 12 months since the assessment, re-assessment would be a solution.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman