Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly complete a needs assessment and refused to provide respite for her children, F and G. Miss X also complained the Council delayed and failed to complete all the recommendations made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. There was fault by the Council for its delays in completing the recommendations made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. This caused injustice to Miss X and the Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
1. failed to properly complete a needs assessment for her children (F and G) in April 2024
2. refused to provide F and G with respite
3. delayed and failed to complete all the recommended actions made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure.
2. Miss X said as a result, her family had been left with no appropriate support for over twelve months which caused significant distress to her family. Miss X also said the matter impacted her and the children’s physical and mental health and caused her time and trouble chasing the Council and making complaints to it and to the Ombudsman.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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. I have investigated matters from January 2024 to January 2025. This period covers the 12 months prior to when Miss X made her complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. I have not investigated matters about the Council’s outcomes after it completed a needs re-assessment for G in March 2025. These matters are new and separate from the complaint Miss X originally made to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Statutory Complaints Procedure

11. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. And the statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. The Ombudsman also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
13. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
14. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
15. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
16. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
17. The review panel should identify any injustice to the complainant where complaints have been upheld and recommend appropriate actions to remedy the identified injustice caused. The panel should also recommend service improvements for the council, if appropriate.
18. Needs Assessment – is the process used by social services to establish whether additional support is needed to meet a child and their family’s needs. After a needs assessment, a plan may be developed setting out the agreed support and services to be provided to the child and family.
19. Early Help – are services and support provided to children and their families at the earliest signs of difficulty, aimed to prevent issues from escalating into crisis and improving outcomes.
20. Education, Health and Care Plan - a child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or the council can do this.
21. Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal - considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs and the contents of the EHC Plan. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
22. Parent Carers Assessment – The Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) places specific duties on councils to assess the needs of carers with parental responsibility for disabled children as well as young carers. Councils have an obligation to assess parent carers on the ‘appearance of need’ (Children Act 1989, section 17ZD/E), or if an assessment is requested by the parent, and to provide a written copy of the assessment to the carer.
23. The Council’s ‘All Age Disability’ (AAD) Eligibility Assessment Criteria – a referral is made for AAD assessment when it is identified the impact of the child’s disability upon their quality of life and family is too great to be met by universal/targeted services. The assessment criteria set out the levels of needs, complexity and impact of presenting disability on a child/young person and their family.

Key events

24. Miss X’s children, F and G have some health conditions, disabilities and complex needs. They both have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and they had been open to the Early Help team for some years.
25. In April 2024, the Council completed a needs assessment for F and G following a Tribunal order in relation to the EHC Plans. The needs assessment was to establish whether F, G and Miss X’s family required additional support due to the children’s disabilities and complex needs. Miss X said she would like some respite support for G.
26. The assessment found there were no safeguarding concerns, that Miss X was pro-active and supported her family well and that the children were more able to access activities in the community. Although the assessment found that G needed some extra support, if found both children did not require a very specialist provision. The assessment found F and G did not meet the Council’s ‘all age disability’ (AAD) criteria and therefore they were not eligible to receive social care intervention. But the Council provided Miss X with links to parenting support and some additional support programmes such as local community activities and holiday clubs for F and G.
27. The Council closed F and G’s case, and it advised Miss X that she could make a re-referral if she felt a social work intervention was required in the future.
28. Miss X disagreed with the content of the assessment report, and she made a complaint to the Council with several concerns raised. Miss X said the needs assessment was not properly completed, and it was not a true reflection of F and G’s complex needs. She said the assessment did not accurately capture her family’s circumstances and the daily struggles they faced as a family. Miss X said there were many errors and omissions in the assessment. Miss X provided the Council with information about F and G’s complex needs and the impact it had on her family. Miss X said the holiday clubs suggested by the Council were not accessible to F and G due to their complex needs. She also complained the Council did not explain to her why her family was refused the support they needed and why they were discharged from any form of social care involvement.
29. The Council responded at stage 1, and it did not uphold most of Miss X’s complaint points. The Council said it properly completed F and G’s needs assessment and maintained they were not eligible to social work intervention. But the Council agreed to amend the assessment report with the new information Miss X provided to it when she submitted her complaint. These included the Council to accurately record the family’s circumstances and G’s complex needs under the relevant headings within the assessment report.
30. In June, Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the statutory complaint procedure. She maintained the needs assessment was not properly completed and that the Council’s decision to amend the report confirmed the assessment was flawed. The Investigating Officer (IO) and the Independent Person (IP) agreed the complaint points and the terms of the complaint with Miss X.
31. In July, the Council amended F and G’s initial needs assessment with the additional information provided by Miss X as agreed in its stage 1 response letter.
32. In October, the IO issued the stage 2 report, and it upheld and partially upheld most of Miss X’s complaint. The IO found the Council did not ask enough open questions to gather information about Miss X and her children to make an in-depth assessment of the family’s needs in April. The IO acknowledged the Council had amended F and G’s initial needs assessment report, so it did not recommend a fresh needs assessment to be completed. But the IO made the following recommendations, for the Council to:
1. arrange a meeting with Miss X to discuss F and G’s updated needs assessment report and explain its decision to Miss X and send a letter to her after the meeting setting out what was discussed.
2. consider assigning a specialist family support worker to Miss X’s family for a short period.
3. discuss the direct payment scheme with Miss X and consider if the scheme was appropriate for her.
4. complete a carers assessment for Miss X.
5. put in place some service improvements to ensure needs assessments are properly completed by gathering sufficient information from relevant service users and professionals. To ensure assessment reports are correctly completed and the contents explained to the service user to ensure they understand the contents and how decisions were reached.
33. On 5 November, the Council issued its stage 2 adjudication letter, and it said Miss X’s complaint showed its service had fallen below the expected standard. The Council apologised to Miss X, and it agreed to complete the IO’s recommendations within 10 working days of its adjudication letter.
34. Miss X said she was not contacted by the Council as agreed and all the recommendations had not been completed by the agreed deadline. Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage 3.
35. In early December, the Council completed another AAD criteria assessment for F and G. The Council still found that F and G did not meet the criteria to be eligible for specialist intervention.
36. On 5 December, the Council met with Miss X to discuss the needs assessment report and sent her the document after the meeting as recommended at stage 2. The Council said Miss X acknowledged it was an accurate record of what was discussed.
37. On 9 December, the review panel issued its stage 3 outcome. The panel found the Council had completed F and G’s initial needs assessment with out-of-date and insufficient information especially in G’s case. The panel recommended a further assessment to be completed for F and G. The panel also asked the Council to complete a parent carer assessment for Miss X.
38. On 12 December, the Council issued its stage 3 response to Miss X. The Council said it would write again to Miss X within 15 working days to advise her of what action the Council would take in relation to the panel’s findings and recommendations.
39. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses, and she made a complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025.
40. Subsequently in mid- January, the Council issued Miss X with its final stage 3 response letter. The Council apologised for its delayed response and confirmed it had considered the panel’s recommendations, and it decided to complete a further needs assessment for G and not for F. This was because it said further consideration showed F did not meet the required eligibility criteria for social work intervention.
41. The Council completed a carers assessment for Miss X and a needs reassessment for G. The new assessment acknowledged the challenges that came with G’s complex needs but still found G did not meet the required AAD criteria to be eligible for social work intervention and direct payments. But the Council said it would support a referral to early help or to its supporting families service to consider specific behaviour support for G.
42. In its response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had completed the stage 2 and stage 3 recommendations, and it provided the following information about the recommended actions:
1. arrange a meeting with Miss X to discuss F and G’s updated needs assessment report and explain its decision to Miss X and send a letter to her after the meeting setting out what was discussed.

• The Council confirmed this action was completed on 5 December 2024 and a follow-on email was also sent to Miss X on the same day. It said Miss X replied to confirm she was happy with the meeting notes but that she disputed and felt the Council’s AAD criteria were applied unfairly.
2. consider assigning a specialist family support worker to Miss X’s family for a short period.
3. discuss the direct payment scheme with Miss X and consider if the scheme was appropriate for her.
• The Council said as part of the assessment process, it had discussed and informed Miss X that direct payments could not be offered to children who do not meet the AAD criteria.
• The Council said support options ‘b’ and ‘c’ were not open to Miss X’s family because F and G did not meet the AAD criteria and therefore were not eligible to receive specialist support, respite or direct payments support.
4. complete a carers assessment for Miss X.
• The Council said it completed a carers assessment for Miss X in February 2025.
5. put in place some service improvements to ensure needs assessments are properly completed by gathering sufficient information from relevant service users and professionals. To ensure assessment reports are correctly completed and the contents explained to service users to ensure they understand the contents and how decisions were reached.
• The Council said a face-to-face session and a virtual briefing to its staff about the lessons learnt would be held on 22 July 2025 and 29 July 2025 respectively. It provided a list of the lessons learnt and points it would discuss with its staff which included the service improvements recommended during Miss X’s statutory complaints procedure.
6. complete a further needs assessment for F and G.
• The Council said it considered the stage 3 recommendation to reassess both F and G, but it decided not to reassess F because he did not meet the AAD criteria.
• The Council said it agreed to complete a re-assessment for G based on the additional information provided to it about his complex needs. The Council confirmed G’s re-assessment was completed on 14 March 2025 and that it still found G did not meet the AAD threshold to be eligible for specialist support. But the Council said it offered Miss X a referral to early help or to its supporting families service to access behaviour support for G, the offer which Miss X did not wish to engage with.
• The Council said it also sent Miss X details of local offer activities which are open to all children in its borough regardless of whether they meet the AAD criteria.

Analysis

43. After a statutory complaints investigation, the Ombudsman does not normally reinvestigate the substantive matters unless we consider the investigation flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
44. As regards Miss X’s complaint points ‘a’ and ‘b’ that the Council did not properly complete F & G’s needs assessment in April 2024 and that it did not provide both of them with respite, I find the matters were adequately considered during the statutory complaints process and I am satisfied the investigation was thorough and robust. I do not consider this investigation was flawed. Therefore, I will not reinvestigate these substantive matters.
45. Also, I find the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel. The Council issued its stage 2 and stage 3 adjudication letters to Miss X which showed it considered the findings and set out what action it would take as regard the recommendations made at both stages. These were not faults.
46. So, my investigation will be to consider whether the Council completed the independent investigation (stage 2) and review panel (stage 3) recommendations in a timely manner and within the agreed timescales.

Stage 2 Recommendations

47. Following the Council’s adjudication letter issued on 5 November; it agreed to complete all the recommendations made at stage 2 within 10 working days of its letter. This meant the Council should have completed recommendations ‘a’ to ‘e’ set out in paragraph 32 by 19 November 2024.

a) Meet with Miss X to discuss F and G’s updated needs assessment report, explain its decision to Miss X and send a letter to her after the meeting setting out what was discussed

48. The Council completed this recommendation on 5 December 2024. This was fault but I find the Council’s delay of approximately two weeks did not cause any significant injustice to Miss X.

b) Consider assigning a specialist family support worker to Miss X’s family for a short period

c) Council to discuss the direct payment scheme with Miss X and consider if the scheme was appropriate for her

49. The needs assessments the Council completed for F and G in April found both children did not meet the AAD criteria. And as a result, the Council said specialist support such as respite support and the above support options ‘b’ and ‘c’ were not open to F, G and Miss X’s family. The Council said therefore, there was no reason to have discussed direct payments with Miss X.
50. I find there was no fault in how the Council made its decision and we cannot question its decision/outcome. This was not fault.

d) Complete a carers assessment for Miss X

51. The Council had not completed a carers assessment for Miss X as at the time Miss X made her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025. The Council’s delay was fault, and it caused distress to Miss X.

e) Implement service improvements to ensure needs assessments are properly completed by gathering sufficient information from relevant service users and professionals. And to ensure assessment reports are correctly completed and the contents explained to service users to ensure they understand the contents and how the Council’s decisions were reached

52. The Council confirmed it would complete this recommendation in July 2025. This is a significant delay, and it is fault. It caused distress and uncertainty to Miss X.

Stage 3 Recommendation

53. The review panel report was issued on 9 December 2024 and the Council’s adjudication letter which set out what actions it would take as regard the panel’s recommendation to conduct reassessments for F and G was issued in mid-January 2025. But the Council did not complete a reassessment for G until March 2025. The Council’s delay was fault, and it caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. But I find the Council’s delay did not cause G any injustice. This is because the reassessment outcome was that G did not meet the AAD criteria and therefore he was not eligible to receive specialist support.
54. The Council did not complete a reassessment for F. This was because the Council found F still did not meet the AAD criteria to have warranted another needs assessment to be carried out. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and it was not fault.

Back to top

Action

55. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Miss X and make her a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the injustice caused to her by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• by training or other means remind relevant staff of the importance of completing the actions recommended at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure in a timely manner and within agreed timescales
• provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the Council has completed the stage 2 recommendation “implement service improvements to ensure needs assessments are properly completed by gathering sufficient information from relevant service users and professionals. And the Council to ensure assessment reports are correctly completed and the contents explained to service users to ensure they understand the contents and how the Council’s decisions were reached”.

56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman