Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with appropriate support as a care leaver whilst he completed his educational programme. He says this has affected his health and caused him financial hardship and distress. The Council is at fault, as it delayed in providing him with appropriate support. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £300 to acknowledge the distress caused, confirm its duty to support him until the end of the educational programme as set out in his pathway plan and review its procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with appropriate support as a care leaver, whilst he completed his educational programme. He says the lack of support, delays and poor communication have caused him financial hardship, health issues and distress. He wants the Council to provide the agreed support, update his pathway plan and fund professional support for his health issues.

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. We cannot investigate an issue if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me. I also considered information provided by Mr X.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments and sought further advice before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

9. The law and government guidance set out councils’ legal duties to provide ongoing support for children leaving care.
10. Councils have a responsibility to plan continuing support for all care leavers. This duty continues until they reach the age of 21, or if they are being helped with education and training, until age 25 or to the end of the agreed training (which can take them beyond their 25th birthday).
11. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal advisor, and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal advisor will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. It must be kept up to date and reviewed at least every 6 months.
12. Pathway plans should continue for all care leavers continuing in education or training. The plan should include details of the practical and financial support the Council will provide.
13. Councils should disregard any interruption in the person’s participation in the programme of education or training, if they are satisfied they will resume it as soon as is reasonably practicable.
14. Councils must pay a bursary to care leavers who are undertaking a recognised course of higher education.

The Council’s financial policy for care leavers

15. Prior to September 2018, the Council paid care leavers in higher education the statutory bursary and also an accommodation allowance. Both these payments were spread throughout the year.
16. From September 2018, the Council changed its financial policy to no longer offer the accommodation allowance. However, it said it would consider individual applications for ongoing support with accommodation costs for the academic year 2018/19. These payments would be discretionary for those who had already arranged accommodation before becoming aware of the change in policy. No more payments for accommodation costs would be made after August 2019.

What happened

17. Mr X became a care leaver in 2011. In 2014, he started a 4-year educational programme with an expected completion date of July 2018.
18. The Council agreed to support him whilst he completed his course. It allocated him a personal advisor and provided financial support in the form of the accommodation allowance and the higher education bursary to help with living expenses.
19. In January 2018, Mr X reviewed his pathway plan with his personal advisor. It set out the need for Mr X to start to make plans for after the end of his course in June 2018. It also records that his advisor told him Council support would end at this time.
20. In Spring 2018, Mr X became unwell, and was unable to complete his course. The educational establishment agreed to grant him a leave of absence due to his poor health. It agreed he could re-take his final year, starting in September 2018.
21. In May 2018, Mr X met with his personal advisor. There is disagreement between Mr X and the Council about what was said at this meeting. Mr X says he discussed his leave of absence with his personal advisor. He says they discussed if funding could be extended until the end of August, as he was continuing with his course so would not be seeking employment over the summer. He says his personal advisor agreed to request this. He said his advisor did not tell him that as he was continuing his studies, he was entitled to ongoing Council support from September 2018 until he completed his course.
22. The pathway plan record says this was Mr X’s final pathway plan review as he was soon to turn 25. It says Mr X told the advisor he may have to re-take some modules but does not record Mr X telling them he had taken a leave of absence or that the educational establishment had agreed for him to re-take his final year starting in September 2018.
23. In Summer 2018, Mr X turned 25. The Council ended both its personal and financial support for Mr X.
24. In September 2018, Mr X re-started the 4th year of his course.
25. In October 2018, Mr X contacted the Council. He said he had found out that the Council should still be supporting him, as he was continuing with his agreed course. The Council says it was only during this conversation that it became aware Mr X had been granted a leave of absence and was continuing with his studies. It said it would consider his request for ongoing support.
26. In December 2018, Mr X complained to the Council. He said he contacted the Council in October 2018, but it still had not accepted its duty to support him until the end of his course. He said the delays were causing him financial hardship and the ongoing situation was causing him distress.
27. In January 2019, Mr X attended a meeting with the Council. He said he had told his personal advisor that he had taken a leave of absence and he would be continuing with his studies from September 2018. The Council said the pathway plan did not record this, only that he may have to re-sit some modules. The Council said the personal advisor had since left the Council, so the pathway plan document was the only record of what had happened at this meeting. The Council told him there was an expectation he should tell the Council of any change in his circumstances.
28. It also told Mr X of recent changes to its financial policy for care leavers. It said under the new policy the Council no longer supported care leavers continuing in education with accommodation costs. Mr X said this would cause him hardship as he had committed to his current accommodation until Summer 2019. The Council said it would consider if it could make a discretionary payment for this academic year, due to the confusion. He would then be expected to make an informed choice about where to live from Summer 2019 onwards as no further accommodation payments would be made. It said it would allocate him a new personal advisor as soon as possible.
29. The Council agreed it had a duty to support him and awarded him the higher education bursary which it backdated to September 2018. It said due to the changes in its financial policy, it was still considering whether it would grant him support with accommodation costs.
30. At the end of February, the Council wrote to Mr X. It said it would pay him the accommodation allowance until the end of the academic year. It said it would back date payments and the money would be paid directly into his bank. It told him it had allocated him a new personal advisor. However, the Council has since said that, in error, a personal advisor was not allocated.
31. In March 2019, the Council responded formally to Mr X’s complaint. It said it accepted its duty and had awarded him the higher education bursary. It said it had also awarded him the accommodation allowance on a discretionary basis for the 2018/19 academic year. It said this was because his pathway plan from May 2018 was misleading, his personal advisor had not sent him a copy and he had not been told of the change to the financial policy. It said he must let the Council know if he was off sick or took a further leave of absence from his studies. It said his pathway plan needed to be updated to accurately record his entitlements during the current academic year.
32. Mr X was dissatisfied with this response and brought his complaint to us. He complained the delays had left him in financial hardship, and the time and trouble taken to resolve the matter had affected his health and caused him significant distress.
33. Between March and June 2019, Mr X corresponded with the Council about payments and the amount owed.
34. In May 2019, Mr X told the Council he had been unwell since January 2019 and had taken a further leave of absence from his course. He said he had not been well enough to tell the Council before then. The Council said he should have told it as soon as he became unwell. It said it had realised there had been an error and it had not allocated him a personal advisor. It gave him details of his new advisor and told him they would be in touch to arrange to meet with him.
35. In June 2019, Mr X met with his new personal advisor and they updated his pathway plan. The updated plan included his current educational programme and recorded Mr X’s wish to continue studying and to complete the course. The plan also noted concerns from teaching staff about Mr X’s health issues and whether he would be able to complete the final year of the course after two breaks in his studies. It recorded that staff had advised him he could graduate now with a good grade, but if he continued with his 4th year and did not do very well, this could negatively affect his overall result. Mr X was provided with a copy of this plan.
36. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said Mr X did not communicate his changes of circumstances effectively with the Council. It said it was not aware Mr X had taken a leave of absence in May 2018 and only became aware when he told them this in October 2018. It said it accepted it had made an error in not allocating him a personal advisor in February 2019, and that his pathway plan was not updated in a timely manner. It apologised to Mr X for this delay and for the initial confusion as to whether he was entitled to Council support.
37. The Council said the concerns raised by teaching staff and the advice provided to Mr X indicate it would not be in his best interests to continue studying, as re-taking the 4th year again may risk him not successfully completing the course at all. It said if it continued to support him financially despite this advice, it would not be fulfilling its corporate parent responsibilities to act as any other good parent would.
38. It also said this case had highlighted training issues for the team and the need to develop specific guidance on pathway plan recording for care leavers at university who take a leave of absence for health reasons.

Analysis

39. There is disagreement about what was said at the pathway plan review meeting in May 2018. The pathway plan does not record Mr X as telling his advisor he was taking a leave of absence and would be continuing his studies from September 2018, but Mr X says it was discussed. As there is no record the Council was told this information, I cannot say it was at fault for not accepting an ongoing duty to Mr X at this time.
40. Following this meeting in May 2018, the Council did not send Mr X a copy of his updated pathway plan. He only received a copy in January 2019. This is fault.
41. The Council says it became aware Mr X was continuing with his course in October 2018. It took until January 2019 to accept its ongoing duty to support him. The guidance is clear that the Council has a duty to support care leavers until the end of the agreed course. It says any disruption should be disregarded, as long as it is clear the person will return to their studies. Mr X had already re-started his course, so this 3-month delay to accept its duty was excessive and is fault. The delay caused Mr X frustration and distress.
42. Although the Council accepted its duty to support him in January 2019, it was not until the end of May 2019 that Mr X was allocated a personal advisor. The Council has accepted this was a mistake and apologised to Mr X. Because of this, his pathway plan was not updated until June 2019. This 5-month delay in allocating Mr X a personal advisor and updating his pathway plan is fault.
43. Mr X says the delays have affected his health and led to him needing to take a further leave of absence from his course. I cannot say the faults identified directly caused this outcome. However, the delays and the time and trouble taken trying to resolve his complaint are likely to have caused Mr X considerable frustration and distress. An apology is an insufficient remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
44. Mr X says he plans to re-start the final year of his course from September 2019. I have considered the Council’s comments about its role as corporate parent and sought advice on this point. Although Mr X is now over the age of 25, the Council has a duty to support Mr X until the end of the agreed educational programme set out in his pathway plan. This duty only ends if the pathway plan is updated and the educational programme is no longer included, or if the Council is satisfied Mr X will not resume his programme as soon as is reasonably practicable. The programme is named in his current pathway plan, and if Mr X resumes his studies this year as planned, the Council has a duty to continue to support him until the end of the programme. The Council should confirm this duty to Mr X.

Agreed action

45. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for the delay in accepting its ongoing duty to support him between October 2018 and January 2019 and the delay in allocating him a personal advisor in 2019;
• pay him £300 to acknowledge the time and trouble taken to resolve the complaint and the distress caused the delays; and
• confirm with Mr X its duty to support him until the end of the agreed educational programme as set out in his pathway plan. If Mr X re-starts the final year in September 2019, it should provide support in line with the statutory guidance and its own policies.
46. Within three months of the final decision the Council will review its procedures and ensure staff are reminded:
• of the duty to support care leavers until the end of any agreed educational programme set out in their pathway plan, even if this takes them beyond their 25th birthday; and
• that any disruption in the course should be disregarded, if they re-start as soon as reasonably practicable; and
• of the need to make care leavers aware of these duties.
47. If the Council has already completed any of these actions, it should provide evidence of this.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

49. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in paying him all the money he was owed in 2019. This is because this matter has already been considered by a court. As set out at paragraph 3 above, we cannot investigate matters which have been before the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman