Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the evidence and her son’s needs when it decided he met the Universal Plus short breaks criteria. We do not find fault with the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the evidence and her son’s (Y) needs when it decided he met the Universal Plus short breaks criteria.
2. Miss X says the Council’s faults mean her and Y do not have the appropriate support.

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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss 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

Short breaks

7. 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’.
8. The Council has a short breaks statement which explains the four levels of shorts breaks services in Islington and who is eligible. The four levels are Universal services, Universal Plus short breaks, Targeted short breaks and Support above the short breaks basic offer.
9. The Council’s short breaks basic offer is a basic amount of hours parent carers of all disabled children should be able to access. For children aged 5 to 18 years old it is three hours per week.
10. Universal services is open to the majority of parent/carers of disabled children. Examples of the support available includes music, arts and drama activities, sports activities and local adventure playgrounds.
11. The Universal Plus package provides additional support to help disabled children use Universal services so their parents can access the basic offer of short breaks. The support available includes help to adapt or buy equipment and support for the disabled child to attend adventure playgrounds.
12. Targeted short breaks are for children who have more severe and complex disabilities that cannot be met within universal childcare, play and leisure services even if there is additional support via Universal Plus.

What happened

13. Y has special educational needs and is disabled. Miss X contacted the Council in 2023 and applied for short breaks. The Council reviewed the evidence and awarded her the Universal Plus short breaks offer.
14. Miss X contacted the Council in September 2024. She said Y had two more diagnoses and the Council had decided he needed an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. An EHC Plan is a document that sets out a child or young person’s special educational needs and the support they need. She said she wanted to reapply for short breaks. The Council provided Miss X with a form to complete.
15. Miss X provided the Council with Y’s occupational therapy (OT) assessment report, his draft EHC Plan and his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessment report.
16. The Council reviewed the evidence and awarded Universal Plus. It had a telephone conversation with Miss X to explain its decision. It said it was because of Y’s ability to make friends in mainstream settings, his mainstream schooling and him wanting to play sports with his friends. It also said his ADHD report and EHC Plan showed that with 1:1 support and movement breaks he could access a mainstream classroom environment. Miss X said Y had been bullied at an adventure playground and he would not feel comfortable using one. The Council said it could provide 1:1 support for Y to attend an alternative activity such as football sessions.
17. Miss X sent a complaint to the Council and said Universal Plus did not address Y’s needs. She said Y had low-esteem and social anxiety which made it difficult for him to engage in many activities. She said boxing and an acting school would be more appropriate for Y and he could not access these with Universal Plus.
18. The Council responded to the complaint and said it was satisfied Universal Plus was appropriate for Y. It said if she had any further evidence to provide, she could send it so it could review her case further.
19. Miss X provided the Council with further documentation to consider including a letter confirming Y’s ADHD diagnosis, details of his OT sessions and a letter about his eating difficulties.
20. The Council issued its final response to Miss X’s complaint. It said it had reviewed the further information, but its decision remained the same. The evidence did not show his needs required a higher level of support than Universal Plus short breaks could offer.

Back to top

Analysis

21. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
22. The Council considered the information from Miss X and its short breaks criteria. It explained to Miss X why Y was eligible for Universal Plus. When she sent further evidence, it reviewed it and explained why its decision remained the same. I appreciate Miss X strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, there is no fault in how it made its decision and therefore I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman