Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly carry out a child in need assessment in 2021 and wrongly declined to carry out assessments in 2022. She complained this led to a long delay in properly assessing their needs as a family and a delay in providing respite support. She also complained there was a delay in providing Direct Payments once support was agreed. A statutory investigation upheld the complaint and achieved a proper assessment for Ms X. We found there was fault by the Council and that there was outstanding injustice that warranted a remedy. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the distress and difficult circumstances Ms X was left in while support was not being provided.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to carry out a Child in Need Assessment in 2022 and 2023 and when an assessment was completed it was delayed and poorly undertaken. This resulted in a lack of support. She complained the Children with Disabilities Team (CWDT) focussed on a lack of diagnosis and important input from other services was not taken into account. The lack of appropriate assessment and support impacted her son, Y, and impacted Ms X’s physical and mental health.
2. Ms X further complained that the Council:
• did not maintain contact with her as it agreed to following Stage Three of the complaints process;
• that there were delays providing direct payments for PA support between February 2024 and May 2024;
• that the Council unreasonably declined to provide sufficient funding for 2:1 support, despite it being agreed at Children in Need meetings that this was required.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. As Ms X’s original complaint has been considered and upheld by an independent statutory complaint investigation, we will not re-investigate the details again. However, we have considered the actions taken by the Council to remedy the complaint. We are exercising discretion to consider several more recent events that follow on from the original complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms 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

Background

10. Ms X complained about the findings of a children and families assessment conducted in 2021. She complained the Council unreasonably concluded her son’s behavioural issues were caused by ‘parenting and attachment’ issues and she had not been made aware this label had been applied. She said the Council then declined to carry out further children and families assessments on numerous occasions in 2022, based on the unreasonable finding of the 2021 assessment. Because the Council did not properly consider the family’s situation in 2022, Ms X was left exhausted and in crisis.
11. She also complained:
• There was a delay in completing a fresh assessment which started at the end of February 2023 (completed in July 2023), it was not a thorough and balanced assessment and key issues were ignored.
• The Children with Disabilities Team’s (CWDT) decision about eligibility for services in 2023 focussed solely on a lack of diagnosis, and its view (that parenting support was needed) ignored work she had done and input she already had.
• Ms X also complained CWDT were not honest or transparent and they recorded inaccurate statements that were never discussed with her.
• She stated a social worker stated on the telephone that 2:1 support for Y was needed, but as her son lacked diagnosis it may not be approved for presentation to a panel.
• She also complained the Council breached data protection by sharing an extract of the minutes of a CIN meeting with a councillor without Ms X’s consent.

Statutory Investigation Outcomes

12. A statutory independent investigation partially upheld Ms X’s complaint about the 2021 assessment. It found no intent to blame her as a parent, but it found the assessment lacked input from another key service and the outcomes were wrongly focused around parenting. It noted there was limited consideration of the risk of carer breakdown and about immediate challenges Ms X faced.
13. The investigation found it had been difficult to establish the full criteria for obtaining support from the CWDT. It found CWDT had not explained why it had declined assessments during 2022 and in doing so it had wrongly focussed on a diagnosis as the criteria for accessing services. It noted there was an eight- month delay from Ms X’s request for services and a further assessment being started which clearly placed Ms X under additional pressure and impacted her mental and physical health.
14. The investigation agreed there was a delay in completing the assessment in 2023. It found, when completed, the assessment did not consider key points. There was again a focus on medical and diagnosis information and the assessment was limited because it lacked input from Y’s school and another key service. It upheld the complaint that the assessment was not thorough, balanced or evidence based.
15. It also found there was lack of transparency and communication about decision making. The investigation found Ms X was not afforded the opportunity to review the findings before her case was closed and there was a delay sending her a copy of the assessment. It found that, despite Y not having a diagnosis at that point, he could have been considered a Child in Need. It found, based on the assessment, the Council could not be satisfied that the correct support would be provided to meet Ms X and Y’s needs.
16. Although Ms X sought help from a councillor in the pursuit of an assessment, the investigation also found there was no consent from Ms X to share other information with that councillor, so this should not have happened.

The Council’s Response to the Statutory Investigation

17. The Council agreed with the findings of the investigation and accepted the recommendations. The agreed actions included various changes and improvements in practices and communication between council teams, other agencies and parents. It was noted that a panel was due to ratify respite support that Ms X needed in mid-March.
18. The Council apologised and it agreed to produce an action plan in response to recommendations made about areas of practice that the investigation criticised. These were discussed at a Stage Three Panel meeting which included Ms X in early March 2024.
19. At the panel, the new Head of Service explained various changes made to the service since the issues Ms X had raised. She offered to keep in touch with Ms X following the meeting to keep her updated on the progress of the required actions.
20. The Stage Two independent investigator commented on the actions he had recommended. He stated he had considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedying complaints, but his proposals concentrated on actions to secure the support Ms X needed and to ensure learning for the council rather than monetary compensation.

Actions following the Stage Three Panel

21. A Disability Resource Panel (DRP) held on 18 March 2024 agreed a package of respite for Ms X. This was 6 hrs per week in term time and 12 hours per week in school holidays. This was to be paid via a Direct Payments (DPs) to allow Ms X to employ a Personal Assistant (PA).
22. There was a significant delay in arranging the DPs to fund the PA. These did not start until 20 June 2024, with a payment being made to backdate the funds to 12 March.
23. At a Child in Need (CIN) meeting on 1 July Ms X explained the difficulties of one person managing Y’s behaviour and keeping him safe when outside home. She requested funding for 2:1 respite care. The social worker agreed to discuss 2:1 respite care with a manager.
24. At the CIN meeting at the end of July, Ms X stated, when taking Y outside of home, she and Y’s PA needed to go out together. This was because the PA could not manage Y’s behaviour on their own. This limited the value of the respite. The social worker’s notes appear to recognise that two carers are needed, but it states a discussion was required between the social worker and managers to agree how to progress this.
25. At a further DRP at the end of October 2024 the Council considered a request from Ms X to increase the amount of support, and to allow two PAs to be employed. This was because one person could not manage Y’s behaviour alone. The panel agreed that the current level of support should be maintained, but funding could be increased to allow this support to be delivered as 2:1 care.
26. The Service Manager arranged a meeting with Ms X in January 2025 to feedback on progress with the support she needed and review what the next steps were.
27. There was a delay in arranging the uplift in direct payments that had been agreed. The Council told us this was resolved in January 2025. Case notes show the case officer chased the back payment at this point. Ms X provided evidence that the funds were put into payment and a backdated sum was paid for the 2:1 care in early April 2025.
28. The Council commented on the periods of delay in providing Direct Payments. It told us it had difficulties with responsiveness and timeliness with the company it used to assist service users to set up PAs. It also noted staff sickness had played a part in these delays.
29. The Council confirmed Y had a social worker who was in contact with Ms X and it shared case notes showing visits to Ms X and to Y had taken place regularly. It confirmed there was now an open package of care for 2:1 respite support. The Council stated it had been agreed with Ms X initially that 1:1 support was likely to be appropriate, but when it became clear that 2:1 support was needed, this was approved.

Ms X’s Complaint

30. Ms X was satisfied with the findings of the statutory investigation. However, she complained to us because she was dissatisfied with the action taken by the Council following the investigation. She complained that the Council:
• did not maintain contact with her as it agreed to following Stage Three of the complaints process;
• that there were delays providing direct payments for Personal Assistant (PA) support;
• that the Council unreasonably declined to provide sufficient funding for 2:1 support, despite it being agreed at Children in Need meetings that this was required.

Was there fault by the Council

31. We have not re-investigated the events of Ms X’s original complaint. This is because this was already subject to a statutory independent investigation. However, we have considered if the Council provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.
32. It is clear there was fault in the refusal of assessments for Ms X and the over-reliance on a diagnosis by the CWDT. There was also a failure to involve other key agencies in the assessment process. This was fault.
33. I note the actions agreed following the statutory investigation, and that a fresh assessment resulted in services being put in place. However, it seems more likely than not, had the fault not occurred, and a proper assessment had been conducted sooner, Ms X would have received respite support around 8 months sooner. I have therefore recommended a payment be made to Ms X to recognise the distress caused by the lack of support in this period.
34. There were further delays in arranging the support Ms X needed. The original DPs were not put in place for around three months after they were agreed. This was further fault and only added to the delay in Ms X receiving the respite she needed.
35. While there may not have been personal contact form the Head of Service we found there was regular contact between Ms X and social workers following the Stage Three panel. We also found no fault in the Council’s original decision to provide 1:1 support (rather than 2:1). This is a judgement for social workers to make.
36. However, there was further delay after the Council agreed to increase DPs to allow for 2:1 care as respite. It took the Council around another six months to put the agreed increase into payment.
37. We note that actions have been taken to address the practice issues that the statutory investigation raised. We also note that services are now being provided. However, we have recommended a written apology to Ms X for the delays with direct payments and a payment to recognise the impact of the delay in providing support. The payment recognises the delay caused by the initial failure to properly assess Ms X and Y, and the later delays in putting DPs into payment once support had been agreed.
38. Our guidance on remedying complaints states, where it is appropriate, we will recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. However, we can recommend higher payments to remedy distress where we decide it was especially severe and/or prolonged. We also take account of personal vulnerability of those affected. In Ms X’s case, due to the prolonged delay in providing support at a time when she was struggling and in crisis I have recommended a payment of £750.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks of our final decision the Council should:
40. Send a written apology to Ms X for the delay in making direct payments when it had agreed to provide respite for Ms X. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
41. Make a payment to Ms X of £750 to recognise the impact of the initial delay in assessing her and her son, and the later delays in making the agreed direct payments.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman