Summary: Mr and Mrs P are unhappy with the Council’s response to their complaint about funding adaptations to their home. The Council suggested adaptations during Mr and Mrs P’s application for a Special Guardianship Order to create an extra bedroom. The Council has agreed to consider Mr and Mrs P’s need for adaptations again.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs P are unhappy with the Council’s response to their complaint about funding adaptations to their home. The Council suggested adaptations during Mr and Mrs P’s application for a Special Guardianship Order to create an extra bedroom for their daughter. However, the Council later said Mr and Mrs P did not make a formal request and the Council had not made a decision. The Council offered a payment to settle the complaint. Mr and Mrs P are unhappy with the payment offered.

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 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

4. I have considered information provided by Mr and Mrs P and information provided by the Council. I invited Mr and Mrs P and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr and Mrs P became Special Guardians for their grandchildren in 2021.
6. In order to provide the children with a bedroom, their daughter, who is studying at university, offered to give up her bedroom. When she returns home during the vacations, she has to stay with relatives living close by. This was a temporary measure to allow the grandchildren to move in with Mr and Mrs P.
7. During the assessment for the Special Guardianship Order, the Council discussed the possibility of financial support for a loft conversion to create an extra bedroom.
8. Mr P chased this up with the Council in August 2021. The Council told him it had considered his request and decided not to offer any support.
9. Mr P and Mrs P complained in November 2021.
10. The Council responded at the first stage of its complaints process in December 2021. The Council said “no formal request was made” for the adaptations, and consequently no decision was made. The Council apologised for the confusion. However, the Council said Mr and Mrs P had not raised the matter during the court process, where they were legally represented, so it did not believe it was at fault.
11. Mr and Mrs P remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to respond at the second stage of its complaints process in January 2022.
12. The Council replied in June 2022. The Council accepted that communication around the issue of adaptations fell below the standard it would accept. The Council said it would like to settle Mr and Mrs P’s complaint on an informal basis and offered a payment of £12,500 towards the cost of adaptions. The Council said this was an ex-gratia payment and following payment the Council would consider the complaint settled.
13. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr and Mrs P complained to the Ombudsman. They explained they had agreed to pay half the cost of a loft conversion and had obtained three quotes for the work at the Council’s request. They said the Council had chosen the cheapest quote which was simply for a ‘box room’ and would not provide a habitable bedroom for their daughter.

Consideration

Special Guardianship

14. A Special Guardianship Order is a court order that gives a carer parental responsibility for a child.
15. Councils can provide a range of support if they consider it is necessary to ensure a Special Guardian can look after a child. This includes financial support. The Council must carry out an assessment to determine whether support is necessary.

The facts

16. The following facts are agreed between both parties:
• Mr and Mrs P’s daughter offered to give up her bedroom so the grandchildren could move in with Mr and Mrs P, but this was only an interim measure;
• the Council suggested adaptations to Mr and Mrs P’s home to provide adequate accommodation for their grandchildren and daughter when she returned home from university;
17. The Council says:
• Mr and Mrs P did not make a formal request for financial support for adaptations;
• Mr and Mrs P were legally represented and did not raise any concerns about accommodation or the Special Guardianship Support Plan in Court;
• there are alternative solutions to Mr and Mrs P’s accommodation problems, for example their daughter could share a bedroom with their grandchildren; and
• the offer of £12,500 as an ex-gratia payment is to recognise poor communication by the Council about the matter.

My investigation

18. I asked the Council how prospective Special Guardians would make a ‘formal request’ for adaptations.
19. The Council said the SGO assessment includes consideration of housing issues and it expected that any particular needs would be raised during the assessment. The assessment then informs the SGO support plan. The Council said the social worker completing the assessment would have these discussions with the individuals being assessed. Any requests for funding home adaptations would be raised with Senior Managers for consideration.
20. The Council suggested adaptations. Mr and Mrs P wanted adaptations. They have been asking for adaptations since the SGO was granted. They still want adaptations. Something has gone wrong.
21. The SGO assessment report notes that Mr and Mrs P’s daughter has ‘relinquished’ her room and will stay with family when she returns home from university. The SGO support plan says nothing about accommodation.
22. This suggests the Council has not followed the procedure it described in response to my enquiries. Housing issues were raised during the assessment: the Council suggested adaptations. However, they are not recorded in the assessment, they were not discussed with senior managers and they are not included in the support plan. The Council has not followed its procedures and has not, therefore, properly considered accommodation.
23. This is fault.
24. I do not consider the fact Mr and Mrs P were legally represented, or that they did not raise the question of adaptations in court, is relevant. The Court decides whether Mr and Mrs P are suitable candidates to be Special Guardians. It has no say in the support offered by the Council.
25. Since the Council said it had not made a decision because Mr and Mrs P had not made a formal request, I asked whether the Council had subsequently made a decision in light of their clear wish to pursue the matter. I asked how the Council decided to offer £12,500 following Mr and Mrs P’s complaint.
26. The Council said it was not usual to receive requests for changes to the financial assistance once an SGO support plan had been agreed and “approved by the court”.
27. As noted above, I do not agree the Court “approves” the support plan. And in any event, Regulations and Government guidance set out procedures for considering requests for support at any time, not just before the Court makes the Order.
28. Following Mr and Mrs P's complaint, the Council said an officer made enquiries. The Council sent me a copy of the officer’s report. The case was reviewed by a senior manager who decided an ex-gratia payment should be made in recognition of poor communication about the adaptations.
29. The Council said it “felt” the payment of £12,500 was a significant amount, on top of the SGO allowance already paid, and would support Mr and Mrs P in their care of their grandchildren, alongside supporting their daughter to return home. The Council said that while Mr P had provided some quotes for work on the home, these were “not determinative”.
30. The Council said the SGO support plan does not contain a commitment to fund adaptations and, while it acknowledged it was not desirable, there were alternatives to adaptations, including Mr and Mrs P’s daughter sharing a room with the grandchildren.
31. The officer’s report prepared for the senior manager following Mr P’s complaint recommended the Council offer financial support “to meet the costs of the extension to Mr and Mrs P’s home.” The officer recognised the “enormous sacrifices” Mr and Mrs P had made to care for their grandchildren; the children seemed happy and settled; it had been anticipated their daughter would return home after university; and the consequences of not providing support could lead to the children feeling increasingly unsettled in the knowledge they were occupying Mr and Mrs P’s daughter’s room and, at worst, the breakdown of the arrangements.
32. I have seen no evidence the senior manager considered these factors, or gave any reasons for deciding not to meet the costs of the extension to Mr and Mrs P’s home.
33. I do not consider the SGO allowance paid by the Council (a weekly allowance for the maintenance of Mr and Mrs P’s grandchildren) is relevant to the question of accommodation.
34. For these reasons, I conclude the Council has not properly considered the question of financial support for adaptations to Mr and Mrs P’s home when responding to their complaint. This is fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
36. The Council’s failure to properly consider their request for adaptations has caused Mr and Mrs P an injustice. The Ombudsman cannot decide how much the Council should contribute. This is the Council’s job. The Council has not done its job properly.
37. I recommend the Council:
• apologises to Mr and Mrs P for failing to properly consider their request for adaptations, both during the SGO assessment and following their complaint; and
• properly considers their request, obtaining any further information necessary and providing Mr and Mrs P with a written decision explaining the Council’s reasons for any support offered.
38. I recommend the Council considers whether improved procedures or guidance are needed for assessing potential special guardians.
39. The Council should complete these actions within one month of my final decision.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. The Council has accepted my recommendations so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman