Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused her request for overnight care for her disabled child Y and did not deal with her complaint about this adequately. There was a delay in agreeing funding and the decision-making process was not made clear to Ms X causing her avoidable frustration and confusion. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
• The Council refused her request for overnight care for her disabled child Y.
• When she tried to challenge the decision, she was told the complaints procedure did not cover care packages.
2. Ms X said this meant she is unable to challenge what she regards as a flawed decision, causing avoidable frustration and distress as well as a lack of support for her and Y.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on two draft decisions. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. The LGSCO’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our general expectations of councils. We expect councils to:
• Be open and clear about policies and procedures
• State the criteria for decision making and give reasons for decisions
• Operate an effective complaints procedure including offering a fair and appropriate remedy.
9. Councils are required to provide a range of services to children in need and their families to promote the welfare and upbringing of children in need. A child is in need if they are disabled. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
10. Early Help is support for children to improve a family’s resilience and/or reduce the chance of a problem getting worse. It is usually provided through general or universal services available to everyone (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, paragraph 118)
11. An assessment (called a Children and Family Assessment or CFA) gathers information about the child and their family, analyses their needs and level of any risk of harm, decides whether they are in need and whether to provide support to address needs and improve outcomes and welfare. (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, paragraph 46)
12. The assessment framework investigates the capacity of parents to respond to the child’s needs and an assessment of the support needs of parent carers of disabled children may be required. (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, paragraph 48)
13. A parent carer is an adult with parental responsibility who provides care for a disabled child. Councils must assess whether a parent carer has needs for support and if so, what those needs are. This is called a ‘parent carer’s needs assessment.’ (PCNA.) Councils must carry out a PCNA if it appears the parent may have needs for support or if the parent carer requests an assessment. (Children Act 1989, section 17 ZD)
14. A PCNA must:
• Have regard to the wellbeing of the parent carer and the need to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child.
• Include an assessment of whether it is appropriate for the parent carer to provide or continue to provide care for the disabled child, in light of their needs for support, other needs and wishes. (Children Act 1989 section 17 ZD)
15. Having carried out a PCNA, a council must consider the assessment and decide:
• Whether the parent carer and/or the disabled child needs support
• If so, whether the needs could be satisfied by providing services (under section 17) (Children Act 1989, section 17ZF)
16. Councils shall provide services to assist individuals who provide care to disabled children to continue to do so, or to do so more effectively, by giving them breaks from caring (Children Act 1989, schedule 2 para 6(1)(c)). This is often known as ‘the short breaks duty.’
17. In performing the short breaks duty, a council must provide, so far as is reasonably practicable, services to assist carers to continue to provide care or to do so more effectively. In particular, a council must provide, as appropriate:
• Day care in the home or elsewhere
• Overnight care in the home or elsewhere
• Educational or leisure activities
• Services to assist carers in the evenings, weekends and school holidays.

(Breaks for the Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011, regulation 4(2))

What happened

18. Y is a disabled child and Ms X has long-term health conditions. Ms X contacted the Council in July 2023 for support around managing Y’s behaviour and for adaptations to the home. The Council referred her to Early Help through the local family centre.
19. A support worker from the family centre referred Ms X to the Council’s Childrens Social Care Service for a PCNA at the start of August 2023. The support worker was concerned Ms X needed respite care. A social worker from the Family Safeguarding Team completed a CFA on 12 October 2023. The assessment included Ms X’s views as a carer. It noted she had health conditions which were adversely affected by poor sleep. Y’s sleep pattern was poor and often involved waking very early. The social worker discussed a referral to adult social care for Ms X, but she declined. Ms X said she felt exhausted and wanted some respite care to recharge her batteries. The social worker noted their view that Y’s case should be dealt with by the Children with Disabilities Team and recommended provision of overnight short break care.
20. There was a plan for Y (the Plan) drawn up in October 2023. The Plan does not set out any services or funding. It said ‘support around a personal budget and overnight respite to be explored by long-term social worker’ Ms X was ‘continuing to use short breaks for Y to attend holiday activities.’
21. There was a Child in Need (CiN) meeting in December 2023. There were five further CiN meetings and reviews of the Plan between January and September 2024. The case records noted Ms X’s continued requests for overnight care for Y.
22. Y’s case was transferred to the Children with Disabilities Team in March 2024. A social worker from that team completed another CFA at the end of March. The social worker’s recommendation was for funding for support for Y to access activities that will enable him to develop life skills.
23. The Plan of April 2024 set out direct payment funding of six hours a week in term time and fifteen hours a week during holidays for Y to attend activities.
24. In May, the Council’s resource panel formally approved six hours a week of funding for a personal assistant (PA) to support Y to access activities during term time and fifteen hours a week during school holidays. The papers noted Ms X had asked for overnight respite care for at least one night a month. There is no record of the panel considering her request, but the panel noted the agreed funding would provide Ms X with respite care. The record stated this funding was agreed till August 2026.
25. Ms X complained to the Council about the matters she has raised with us. The Council’s first response said:
• The Council does not usually put in place night care other than where there are medical needs. Normally, the NHS funds this type of care
• It appears Y’s sleep issues are due to his autism
• The budget holder asked Ms X to keep a sleep diary and to liaise with Y’s GP to see if medication could help. The budget holder also suggested considering whether a support worker could do some work around healthy sleep routines. The Disability Resource Panel would consider the request for a care package again in October as long as the information was available
• There was a delay considering her request.
26. Ms X tried to escalate her complaint and asked how the resource panel had made its decision. The complaints team told her the complaints procedure could not look at decisions made in relation to care packages as the panel made these decisions. Ms X said she was complaining about how the panel had arrived at the decision and asked how to appeal. She said she had been misled and had thought she would get an overnight care package.
27. The complaints team offered Ms X a meeting with a senior member of staff from the service area who would be able to answer her questions. Ms X said she couldn’t attend a meeting because of her health condition and instead put some questions to the Council. The Council responded to those questions saying:
• The sleep diaries she kept enabled the team to understand Y’s behaviours and consider the criteria for health funding
• The social worker didn’t have enough information to put the case to the resource panel in August
• The Council wanted more up to date information about Y’s health; his school attendance was of no concern and so he could get up in the morning and attend school.
• Y was only 7 years old and it needed to consider the impact on him being away overnight
• It is not council policy for a family or household member to be paid as a PA
28. In December 2024, the Council’s resource panel considered a request for extra funding for Y to attend an activity provider. The record said:
• A temporary package had been agreed for sessions with an activity provider as Ms X could not find a PA.
• Ms X was asking for funding for a PA to support Y with overnight care as she was worried about him having respite care out of the home. She was asking if her partner could provide support as a waking carer.

There is no record of the panel’s consideration of Ms X’s request for her partner to provide support for Y as a waking carer. The record said [an officer] ‘denied Ms X’s request for her partner to act as Y’s PA.’ There is no reason or explanation of the refusal.

29. The Council told me it had not completed a PCNA for Ms X. But:
• Its CFA incorporates an assessment of the impact caring has on a parent and in Ms X’s case, there was provision for respite and support to enable her to have a break from caring.
• The resource panel had reconsidered the request for overnight respite with additional evidence from sleep diaries and Y’s GP and had offered one night a month. Funding was in place for this and Ms X was going to look round the respite facility before deciding whether to use the placement.

Findings

The Council refused Ms X’s request for overnight care for her disabled child Y

30. Ms X asked for overnight respite care repeatedly between July 2023 and August 2024 and then eventually complained about it. Her requests are documented in meetings, in referral paperwork, on Y’s Plans and in reviews. The Council’s communication on this issue was unclear and misleading. This was not in line with our expected standards as set out in paragraph eight and this was fault. The assessments (CFAs) recommended provision of overnight care, and the first Plan said that a personal budget and overnight respite were to be explored. Yet it was not made clear to Ms X that no decisions had been made and Ms X was not made aware individual social workers did not make decisions about funding. Poor communication caused avoidable frustration, confusion and distress and led to Ms X’s complaint.
31. There was delay in putting the case to resource panel which was fault. The first CFA was completed in October 2023, yet the panel did not consider the funding request until March the 2024. The panel did not consider the overnight respite funding request until December 2024. The process of agreeing funding for both activities and overnight respite support was protracted which was fault and this caused avoidable distress.
32. The Council does not complete stand-alone PCNAs, instead it considers parent carer’s needs through a CFA. Working Together does not require a separate PCNA. The CFAs addressed carer’s needs and there is no fault.

When Ms X tried to challenge the decision, she was told the complaints procedure did not cover care packages.

33. The Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint was confusing and this was fault causing avoidable distress. There is no reason a council’s complaint response cannot deal with the decision-making process around care packages. Councils always have the power to review funding decisions around care, including during the complaint process.

Back to top

Agreed Action

34. Within one month of my final decision, the Councill issue:
• An apology. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• A payment of £250 to reflect Ms X’s avoidable distress caused by delay and poor information about decision-making on care packages set out in the paragraphs 31 and 33
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman