Summary: there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s decision to close Cromwell House, a respite centre for disabled children, for two nights each week. The Council is making plans in case B should need emergency respite in the future when the centre is closed. While the plans are not Mrs F’s preferred option, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to criticise them.

The complaint

1. Mrs F, a foster carer, complains about the Council’s decision to close Cromwell House, the Council’s respite care provision for children with a disability, on two nights a week. Mrs F is concerned about the lack of emergency support in the event of a crisis.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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 Mrs F; and
• information provided by the Council.
5. I invited Mrs F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs F and her husband, Mr F, are foster carers for the Council. They care for a young child, B, with very complex needs. They have taken virtually no respite in all the years B has lived with them.
7. Cromwell House offers respite care for children who have a disability. Cromwell House is open five nights a week.
8. Mr F required an operation in 2018. His operation was scheduled for a day when Cromwell House was closed. The Council opened Cromwell House for B for one night.
9. Mr F required further surgery. The Council arranged for short break carers to come to Mr and Mrs F's home for two days to care for B.
10. Mr and Mrs F appreciate the Council's efforts but say that Mr F returned home earlier than planned after his first operation and was largely confined to his bedroom to recuperate after the second operation.
11. They complained to the Council about the decision to close Cromwell House two nights a week. They explained this leaves them without 'backup' in case of an emergency.
12. The Council responded to their complaint at both stages of its complaints process. The Council explained the decision to close Cromwell House was taken to save money. The Council agreed to review the wording of foster care agreements to ensure it is clear foster carers looking after children with challenging or highly complex needs will be provided with alternative care arrangements in cases of genuine emergency.

Consideration

13. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council’s respite facility for disabled children, Cromwell House, should be open five nights a week or seven. This is the Council’s job. The Ombudsman cannot question Council decisions taken without fault, no matter how strongly Mrs F disagrees.
14. The Council explained that it decided to close Cromwell House one night a week in 2015. This was to save money. The Council decided to close Cromwell House for an additional night each week in 2016. The Council needed to save even more money.
15. The Council sent me the reports prepared for the Council’s Cabinet when elected members were asked to consider reducing the number of nights Cromwell House was open each week. The reports explain that Monday and Tuesday are the least popular nights for respite, and it would be possible to meet the demand for scheduled respite breaks by opening Cromwell House from Wednesday to Sunday. The reports acknowledge the Council will be providing a poorer service, and that service users, their families and staff are likely to be unhappy with the changes. The reports acknowledge that the cuts will have an impact on disabled people.
16. Elected members approved the proposals to close Cromwell House for two nights each week. This is a decision they were entitled to take, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it. Councils face difficult decisions when they need to save money. The Ombudsman checks the Council followed due process. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault. The cabinet papers satisfy me there was no fault in the Council’s decisions. The Ombudsman takes no view on the merits of the cuts. This is entirely a matter for the elected members.
17. It does not appear the Council considered the need for emergency respite when elected members decided to close Cromwell House for two nights each week. The reports to Cabinet do not say what measures, if any, the Council has put in place to deal with emergencies on the nights Cromwell House is closed. In addition, the reports suggest that Cromwell House will be fully booked with scheduled respite on the nights it is open. Presumably this means the Council would have to cancel somebody’s scheduled respite stay to accommodate an emergency respite placement on these nights.
18. Mrs F’s complaint has highlighted the need for contingency plans in case of emergency. Mrs F’s preferred option would be for Cromwell House to be available seven days a week. The Council has decided this is not possible.
19. The Council opened Cromwell House specially for B on one occasion. On another occasion, the Council arranged for carers to come to Mrs F’s home to care for B. The Council has assured Mrs F it will make arrangements to care for B in case of emergency. At the time of my investigation, the Council said that it was in the process of identifying at least three alternative foster carers who could provide emergency respite care for B in their own homes, as well as carers who could come to Mrs F’s home to care for B. The Council also has an adapted property that could be used. The Council said it will agree an emergency plan with Mrs F and ensure the out of hours service is aware of the plan in case an emergency happens out of hours. This satisfies me the Council has addressed Mrs F’s concerns. While these are not Mrs F’s preferred arrangements, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s decisions. The Ombudsman does not decide how to plan for any emergency respite B might need in the future.
20. The closure of Cromwell House for two nights each week could potentially affect other families who might need emergency respite care on those nights. I trust the Council has made similar plans for those families, or that the plans it is making for B will serve other families.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have ended my investigation. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s decision to close Cromwell House for two nights each week, and the Council is making plans in case B should need emergency respite in the future. While these plans are not Mrs F’s preferred option, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to criticise them. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman