Summary: there was fault by the Council in its handling of Ms B’s complaint in the form of delay and lost opportunity to have the matter considered under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is no fault in its consideration of her requests for support which were properly conducted in the form of a number of assessments of the family’s needs.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains about the way in which the Council have handled her requests for support for her daughter who has learning difficulties. Specifically she complains that it:

1. failed to conduct proper assessments in 2018 and 2019 because it did not properly consider all the evidence she and professionals provided meaning the conclusions of these assessments were wrong;
2. should have provided support it put in place as a result of a further assessment in 2020 earlier; and
3. failed to deal properly with her complaints about this under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 considered the written information Ms B provided with her complaint and discussed her complaint with her. I took account of all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
6. Ms B 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

What should have happened

7. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 a child is considered to be in need in certain circumstances including if he or she is disabled. The Children Act requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need and to promote their upbringing by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the child’s needs.
8. “Working Together to Safeguard Children” is statutory government guidance on how councils should assess children who may be in need of help. Assessments should be evidence based and take account of the child’s wishes and feelings, if possible, as well as the family’s circumstances. Whilst it is expected that assessments should take account of the needs of the child it is also expected that it will take account of the needs of other family members including the child’s parents. However, parents also have the right to request their own assessment as carers and a council is required to undertake this if they make such a request. The parent carers assessment assesses whether the parents have a need for support and what those needs are and must have regard to the wellbeing of the parents and decide whether services could be provided under section 17 to meet those needs.
9. Where a child is assessed as needing services they may be entitled to a personal budget which is money the Council will provide to cover the cost of the support needed.

10. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.

11. Complaints about a council’s actions in regard to section 17 should be considered under the three stage statutory procedure for complaints about a number of children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review.
12. The statutory guidance on the children’s statutory complaints procedure entitled “Getting the Best from Complaints” confirms at paragraph 2.2.1 that complaints about services provided under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989 (which includes section 17) are covered by the procedure and they types of complaints may include “an unwelcome or unwanted decision” and “application of eligibility an d assessment criteria”. Paragraph 2.6.1 confirms that councils are required to complaints from “…any child or young person (or a parent of his or someone who has parental responsibility for him)…”

Background

13. X is now 15 years old. She was diagnosed with autism in January 2019 and a mild learning disability in October 2019. She has a number of other diagnoses including ADHD, hypermobility and a co-ordination disorder. She has an Education, Health and Care Plan and attends a special needs school.

Assessments undertaken

14. An assessment was completed in July 2018 following a request for this by Ms B’s solicitor. The outcome of that assessment was that the Council considered X’s needs were being appropriately met by Mr and Ms B and the services already in place such as those at X’s school. That assessment stated that Mr and Ms B had requested a carers’ assessment.
15. A carers assessment was completed in October 2018. The social worker who completed the assessment confirmed she had interviewed Mr and Ms B in order to complete the assessment and obtained information from the Council’s files and professionals involved with the family such as teachers and health professionals. The assessment looked at Mr and Ms B’s own needs in depth noting that Ms B had recently completed a course of personal therapy and had stopped taking medication for depression. The assessment concluded that all X’s needs were being met by her parents and services already involved with her such as her school and social clubs. The assessment concluded that Mr and Ms B would be provided with details of specialist services in the area including parenting support groups and youth groups to help X develop her level of independence, a service to help them with financial management. They were advised to contact a worker already involved with X to help them with “…managing X’s needs in a more positive way which would help them with their current priorities , planning and making time for themselves…”
16. An addendum to that carers’ assessment completed in October 2018 was undertaken in March 2019 due to a change in Ms B and her husband’s circumstances. The changes related to changes in their health needs which were a diagnosis of depression for Ms B and an increase in her stress due to greater care she was providing for X. Mr B had recently had surgery which affected his ability to care for X. Having considered these changes however the social worker did not consider they had such a significant impact of Ms B’s and Mr B’s ability to meet X’s needs or own their own wellbeing (Ms B was receiving treatment and Mr B had stepped back in providing care to X in any event) that they met the criteria for help and so did not change the outcome of the October 2018 assessment.
17. An early help assessment was completed in July 2019. Ms B had asked the Council to consider overnight respite care for X, access to a youth club for X once a week and someone to take and transport X to a Saturday group in a nearby town. This assessment states it was undertaken as a result of additional information provided in an assessment completed by an Educational Psychologist. X was noted to be receiving holiday support from an external organisation which provided her parents with some respite. The officer who conducted the assessment interviewed Ms B and her husband as well as staff at X's school. The outcome of that assessment was that X's needs had not changed significantly from the previous assessments and the support currently available for the family was sufficient to meet the needs identified.
18. A further assessment was completed in July 2020 following a further request from Ms B for respite care for X and because of the limited support available over the Covid period including school and school holiday support. That assessment addressed in some detail the stresses on the family of caring for X. The social worker recommended a personal budget for 6 hours a week respite over the school holiday period equating to 78 hours support a year. She also made a number of recommendations for sources of support for Ms B and her husband including, for example, a parenting group and an autism advice service. The reason for this outcome was the impact on services resulting from the Covid crisis which meant X’s attendance at school was affected as were the social activities X usually attended.

Evidence Ms B provided to the Council

19. The evidence included:
• a doctor’s letter dated January 2019 and date stamped as received by the Council in February 2019 asking the Council for help for Ms B and her family, specifically respite care and for help with X to become more independent;
• a copy of a doctor’s letter dated October 2019 which detailed X’s medical diagnoses and medications and confirmed a diagnosis of mild learning disability which was provided to the Council in August 2020; and
• a copy of a doctor’s letter dated November 2020 which gave an outline of information the family had provided to him/her about how they were managing and the impact of the Covid lockdown period on the family.

Ms B’s complaints to the Council

20. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman’s office in October 2019 about assessments the Council has completed in relation to her daughter and her and her husband as her carers in 2018 and 2019. We considered her complaint to us was premature and in January 2020 asked the Council to consider it under its complaints procedure. Her complaint was considered by the Council at stage 1 of the complaints procedure in February. The Council’s response stated that although X is a child in need by virtue of being a disabled child she did not meet the criteria to receive services for this.
21. In April 2020 Ms B asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints procedure as she was dissatisfied with the response to stage 1.
22. In May the Council asked her for more information on the reasons for her request to escalate the matter. Ms B provided this in early June stating her earlier complaints to the Council had still not been answered.
23. The Council responded by saying it considered she had not received a response to an earlier complaint about a failure to provide Ms B with a response to an issue she raised with officers in a meeting in September 2019.
24. In August 2020 Ms B again asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure saying she had already raised concerns about the assessments completed in October 2018 and July 2019 which she said contained errors and did not properly explain why she did not meet the criteria for help. She referred to letters of support provided by doctors since January 2019 and an Educational Psychologist’s report in April 2019 saying these had not been taken into account. She said in October 2019 she asked a Council officer why these reports did not result in services but did not receive a reply. She also queried why in July 2020 she had been assessed as requiring 6 hours support during the school holidays and why a new carers assessment for her and her husband had not been activated following the July decision which noted that Ms B and her husband were receiving therapy. She also asked why a complaint about her daughter had been circulated to the complaints team and why a letter she sent in August had gone missing even though it had been signed for by the Council.
25. The Council confirmed in early September that Ms B’s complaint had been escalated to stage 2 as requested.
26. Ms B instructed a solicitor in mid-September who wrote to the Council about Ms B’s unhappiness about the lack of provision. The Council’s legal advisor replied in late September confirming, amongst other things, that:
• the Council had been providing daytime respite of 6 hours a week during the school holidays due to the impact of Covid on services usually available and was not intended to be a long term provision;
• overnight respite care was not assessed as being a need for either X or Mr and Ms B; and
• the reason the July assessment determined the family needed services when the previous assessments had not was that the support the family had previously been able to access was not available during the Covid period.
27. The Council provided a response at stage 2 of the complaints procedure in October 2020. The officer apologised for not replying sooner stating they had decided to wait for Ms B’s solicitor’s enquiry to be dealt with before providing a response to the complaint. The officer decided not to respond to issues that had been addressed elsewhere including in the response to the solicitor but agreed that in response to Ms B’s complaint about quality checking of social work reports that staff would be reminded to complete reports in time for managers to check/consider them before they were issued or discussed.
28. In November Ms B asked for the matter to be considered at stage 3 of the complaints procedure. She later clarified the reason for this request was the lack of investigation at stage 2. The response at stage 3 was sent in early to mid January 2021. The stage 3 response included:
• upholding Ms B’s complaint about incorrect information in assessments having not been checked by managers but said this issue had been addressed at stage 2; and
• stating that Ms B’s request for a further carer’s assessment was not justified as her needs as a carer (and that of her husband) had been addressed in the assessment in July 2020.
29. In its comments to me the Council has accepted there were delays in the handling of the complaint but attributes some of these to needing to get clarification from Ms B on elements of the complaint, that the complaint was sent to the Ombudsman’s office instead of to the Council in the early stages and that it prioritised responding to Ms B’s solicitor in the later stages of the process.
30. The Council says it did not consider the matter under the statutory complaints procedure because it was not a complaint from X and X was not receiving a service from the children’s services team at the beginning of the process and that it could therefore be addressed under the corporate procedure.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

31. There is no evidence to support Ms B’s belief that the assessments undertaken did not thoroughly address the needs of X and her and her husband. I have considered the medical evidence that Ms B provided to the Council and conclude that the concerns and information in these letters were addressed in the assessments. The assessments detail the circumstances for X and her family as explained by Ms B and the issues addressed include the information provided in the professionals’ letters. I am satisfied that the assessments were completed properly and addressed the concerns expressed and there are no grounds for me to conclude there was fault in them. In the absence of fault there are no grounds for me to conclude the conclusions reached were wrong though I recognise that Ms B does not agree with the outcomes of the 2018 and 2019 assessments.
32. As I have stated above I have found no fault in the assessments completed in 2018 and 2019. It was the change in pressures on the family resulting from the Covid 19 lockdown including the closure of services that provided support the family such as X’s school and weekend activities that changed the family’s circumstances and resulted in the Council reaching a different decision on what support was needed at that time. I find no fault in the Council reaching a different conclusion in the 2020 assessment as it relates to a change in circumstances.
33. The Council should have considered Ms B’s complaints under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The complaint qualified for consideration under the process so the failure to do so amounts to fault. The statutory procedure is not restricted to complaints from children directly and covers complaints about a disputed decision or an assessment. Whilst I consider the consideration of the complaint by the Council did address the complaint, Ms B lost the opportunity to have her complaint considered under the statutory procedure and this was an injustice to her. I have no grounds to believe that it would have reached a different outcome and have found no fault on the assessments as a result of my consideration of Ms B’s complaints about these.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Ms B for the delays in the handling of her complaint and for its failure to consider the complaint under the statutory procedure; and
• pay her £250 to recognise the lost opportunity to have her complaint considered under the statutory complaints procedure and the frustration caused by the delays and chasing up responses.
35. Within three months of the final decision on the complaint the Council will provide us with evidence that its information to staff ensures that accurate information about who qualifies for consideration under the statutory complaints procedure is provided to staff dealing with complaints and that staff are made fully aware of this.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There was fault by the Council in its handling of Ms B’s complaint in the form of delay and lost opportunity to have the matter considered under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is no fault in its consideration of her requests for support which was properly conducted in the form of a number of assessments of the family’s needs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman