Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain their son, ‘D’, has not received an outreach or befriending service since August 2017, despite this being part of his care plan. We do not find fault with this, as while D has not received this service we consider the Council has acted reasonably to support him in this time. However, we do uphold the complaint because of fault in the Council’s complaint handling causing delay and putting Mr and Mrs C to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed action to remedy that injustice detailed at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I have called ‘Mr and Mrs C’, complain their son ‘D’ has not received an outreach and befriending service since August 2017. This is despite this need being part of his care plan.
2. Mr and Mrs C say as a result they have suffered increased pressure in meeting D’s needs without support. They have less time to spend with their other children, who are sometimes distressed by D’s behaviours. They also say that failings by the Council have increased D’s anxieties and these place additional strain on the family.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr & Mrs C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and supporting information they provided, including that gathered in a telephone conversation with them.
• Complaints made by Mr and Mrs C to the Council before we began our investigation. The Council’s responses to those and papers relevant to its investigation of the complaint.
• Further information provided by the Council in response to my written enquiries.
• Relevant law and guidance where referred to in the text below.
• Comments made by Mr and Mrs C and the Council in response to a draft decision statement setting out my thinking about the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. D lives with his parents Mr and Mrs C in the family home with two younger siblings. In August 2017, he was aged 16 and turned 18 in October 2018. D has a diagnosis of autism and a learning disability and attends a specialist school with an education, health and care plan (EHCP). Since 2012 the Council had assessed Mr and Mrs C as entitled to receive social care support for D.
7. Until October 2018 the Council provided services for D as a ‘child in need’ under Section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989. In August 2017, the Council identified those services in a child and family plan. This said the Council would provide Mr and Mrs C with a direct payment allowing them to buy in an outreach and befriending service for D. This would be for six hours a week, split into two three hour sessions, one during the week and one at the weekend. The direct payment would allow a care provider to provide two members of staff to work with D. The plan said the care provider would support D to access the community, develop his independence and ensure he received stimulation.
8. In August 2017, the Council began reviewing D’s social care needs. The Council said a review began then because of increasing concerns about D’s aggression and risk-taking behaviours. A care provider, commissioned by Mr and Mrs C supported D, but only at weekends. The Council recorded Mr and Mrs C having concerns. They said the care provider did not always send workers who could drive and because D could not use public transport this restricted his access to the community. The social worker recorded concern for the impact of D’s needs on the family. They noted “a lack of choice of services who will support children as complex and challenging” as D. The social worker hoped to identify more support for the family, including overnight placements for D. They also tried to arrange more care with the care provider, but Mr and Mrs C say this strained their relationship with that provider as they did not want D receiving more care from this source.
9. I noted that in mid-August 2017 the Council first approached another care provider to see what support it might offer. At the end of the month that alternative provider told the Council it had no available support.
10. Around the same time Mr and Mrs C cancelled the existing care provider’s service according to records kept by the Council which include both social work notes of conversations with Mr C and the care provider. They did this after reporting concerns about one care worker who used to drive D to activities. The care provider could not replace that care worker with another who could drive. Mr and Mrs C understood that moving forward therefore, the care provider would not be able to transport D to activities.
11. Over the next month I noted Mr and Mrs C’s social worker contacted the Council’s foster care service to see if it might provide respite for D. It said that it could not meet D’s needs. Mr and Mrs C say this was always destined to be so. I also noted the record of a telephone conversation suggesting Mrs C told the Council she had approached care providers to see if they could work with D, but without success.
12. I noted that around September 2017 Mr and Mrs C’s relations with children’s services became strained. Medical professionals working with D diagnosed he also potentially had bi-polar disorder. They recommended medication to control this. But the Council’s notes suggest Mr and Mrs C did not agree with the diagnosis and suggested medication (something recorded many times over the following months). Social work notes suggested from this time on they had concerns Mr and Mrs C were disengaging from professional support. Mr and Mrs C did not attend a scheduled review of D’s care plan in September 2017.
13. In early October 2017, the Council recorded Mr and Mrs C refusing a placement offering overnight care considering it unsuitable as it would take D time to settle and he could not remain there beyond turning 18. They preferred to wait to see if a placement would become available at D’s school, which can offer some overnight care also. There were none available at the time. None has become available since.
14. By this time the Council had identified a need for its transitions service to also work with D as he would continue to need care services on turning 18. This service usually begins working with a young person from the age of 16. The Council’s Children’s Service had referred D’s case sooner, but a communication failure meant the Transitions Team remained unaware. Having remedied this oversight, the Council offered Mr and Mrs C a joint meeting with social workers from both teams. They declined this.
15. Before the end of October 2017, the Council recorded suggesting to Mr and Mrs C they may want to try and work again with the original care provider. But they declined this for the reasons they cancelled the service in August. The Council’s notes say it also sent Mr and Mrs C details of other care providers they could approach. It also recorded approaching three alternative providers, none of whom could help.
16. In November 2017, the Council identified another care provider. A joint meeting with Mr and Mrs C followed and this provider agreed to assess D. Sessions with that company began in mid-January 2018, although they soon broke down. At a second visit to the home Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that one support worker could not drive D as he had no suitable car insurance. They also questioned his English skills. A second care worker arrived late. They questioned if they were physically fit enough to meet D’s needs. The Council later recorded Mr and Mrs C refusing an offer to mediate with the care provider, although I could not identify where the Council suggested this.
17. During February 2018, the Council recorded several further efforts to try and secure support for D. As well as using its own brokerage service to arrange care, the Council gave Mr and Mrs C contact details for an alternative brokerage service. It also approached three different care providers, none of whom could help. It suggested D could attend a play scheme during the half-term break. Mr and Mrs C declined this believing it unsuitable and say D’s school also opposed the suggestion.
18. In March 2018, the Council recorded contacting another two alternative providers, who had previously said they had no capacity to meet D’s needs. They again said they could not help. Before the end of the month the Children’s Services social worker handed over the case to a colleague. In their handover note they also referred to attempted contacts with another three care providers, who they said had no capacity to help D. I have seen no record of any first-hand contact with those providers.
19. In late March 2018, a care provider previously approached suggested they were now able to support D. However, this information proved mistaken. By May 2018 the company said it could not meet his needs.
20. By May 2018 the Council’s brokerage team also reported it had received no reply to an advert seeing if it could recruit a personal assistant to work with D. The brokerage officer also said to Mr and Mrs C they had approached other personal assistants direct who worked with other clients to see if they could help. But it had no success with that either.
21. In June 2018, the Council identified another care provider who said they could provide outreach for D. They assessed D and took him out briefly at the beginning of August. But by the end of the month this line of potential support also broke down. The care provider arrived late for their session with D and said that Mr C became confrontational. They later withdrew from the case as they had not fully understood D’s aggressive behaviours and their staff did not have suitable training in restraint measures. The provider said it had not known about D’s aggressive behaviours when assessing if they could meet D’s needs. I noted the Council had no involvement in that assessment. Notes said the care provider undertook it with input from Mr and Mrs C and D’s school.
22. From July 2018, the Council’s Transitions Team took on management for D’s case. This followed the breakdown in relations between Mr and Mrs C and children’s services following the failure of the service to resolve their complaint to their satisfaction (see below).
23. After the failure of the latest care provider in August 2018, the Transitions social worker recorded contacting another four care providers (including some who earlier said they had no capacity). None said they could help. This was either because they had no available staff, no suitably trained staff or in one case, no longer did outreach work.
24. In September 2018 Mr and Mrs C’s relations with the Transitions social worker also broke down. This followed his involvement in a safeguarding referral made by D’s school.
25. In October 2018 D turned 18. Children’s services closed his case and since then D has received social work support from its adults’ team. D’s social worker has assessed that D does not have capacity to make his own decisions about his care needs.
26. The Council has looked at two alternative short-break placements for D. One of these declined to accept him believing his needs may put other clients at risk. The Council said in February 2019 the other placement was still under consideration.
27. The Council said that in February 2019 it agreed to again approach care providers to see if they could provide an outreach service to D. It has again suggested day care as an alternative and Mr and Mrs C have visited two of these and are considering if they can meet D’s needs.

Mr & Mrs C’s complaint

Background

28. Specific law and guidance covers complaints about local government children’s services. Councils must follow a three-stage procedure. Stage one provides the Council a chance to resolve a complaint informally. The Council should aim to complete stage one complaints within 10 working days.
29. If the Council cannot do this, then at stage two it must appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP), who oversees the investigation. The IO produces a report with their findings and the IP produces a report commenting on the investigation. The Council must then respond to that. The Council has a maximum of 13 weeks to complete a stage two review.
30. If a complainant remains unhappy they can then ask for a stage three review. A panel made up of three people independent of the Council hears the review. The panel will consider the grounds for dissatisfaction with the outcome of the stage two investigation and may recommend the Council take further action.

Chronology

31. Mr and Mrs C made their first complaint to the Council on 13 October 2017. They complained the Council had not identified an alternative care provider, since the breakdown of D’s support in August 2017.
32. The Council replied within seven days. Its service manager apologised that D was not receiving the care identified in his child and family plan. He said D’s social worker had made efforts to identify an alternative provider and would continue to do so working with the Council’s brokerage service. He explained however, there was a shortage of providers with suitable skills to support young people with D’s needs.
33. Unhappy with this response, Mr and Mrs C asked to step up their complaint to stage two of the procedure on 25 October 2017. In response, the Council referred Mr and Mrs C’s concerns back to the same service manager. On 8 December 2017, the manager wrote again to Mr and Mrs C, in a reply headed “further clarity on the Stage One response”. The reply again apologised that D did not receive a service. He offered further comments on efforts to identify a care provider and again commented on the difficulties in provision for young people with D’s needs. He said the Council would undertake “a larger review” of work to try and identify more providers.
34. On 20 February 2018 Mr and Mrs C again asked the Council to step up their complaint. In reply, the Council said that it thought “it would be more beneficial and much quicker” to ask the service to again reply direct. It now arranged a meeting with the service manager who had sent Mr and Mrs C letters previously.
35. That meeting took place on 1 March 2018 but Mr and Mrs C remained unhappy it did not result in any new service provision for D. So, on 23 March 2018 they again asked for their complaint to progress to stage two.
36. By 26 April 2018 the Council had appointed an IO and IP who met with Mr and Mrs C and agreed the scope of the stage two investigation. They remained unhappy at events since August 2017, since which time D had received no outreach or befriending support. They said the Council’s service manager had promised ‘a team of interns’ would research alternatives at the meeting on 1 March, but they had heard nothing further about this. Social workers had also promised to research specific providers and not reverted. They explained the difficulties in finding a suitable service to work with D given his age and needs. I noted Mr and Mrs C also raised concerns about D’s EHCP, but as that has not formed part of their complaint subsequently I will not detail that here.
37. The IO’s stage two report completed on 29 June 2018 and the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs C accepting its findings with a letter dated the same day. I noted the IP’s letter of support confirming his satisfaction with the conduct of the investigation and findings followed on 4 July 2018. The Council says that it waited to receive this before despatching its letter to Mr and Mrs C and so believes the letter dated 29 June was not sent until after 4 July.
38. The stage two reports sets out a chronology of events similar to that I have laid out above. I will not therefore repeat that. In their findings, I noted the IO found:

• Mr and Mrs C were not receiving suitable support for D. But it said the cause was a lack of available providers.
• It said after 1 March the Council had allocated D’s case to a new social worker rather than asking a “team of interns” to look for a new care provider. The IO said this was in the spirit of what the service manager agreed.
• There had been no failings caused by any changes in personnel working with Mr and Mrs C.
• The Council had delayed in referring D’s case to its transitions service. But noted Mr and Mrs C had then delayed meeting with that service so it had not begun its work with D.
• It considered the referral procedure followed by children’s services reasonable. It said each care provider had to undertake its own assessment to decide if they could meet D’s needs.

39. The IO recommended that if there were further changes in the personnel supporting D the Council should ensure they received effective communication about this. It also recommended the Council take account of Mr and Mrs C’s experience when carrying out the wider review of service provision which the service manager had previously referred to.
40. On 9 July 2018 Mr and Mrs C asked for their complaint to go to stage three of the complaint procedure. They considered the stage two investigation flawed for reasons including that:

• It relied on a selective chronology of events and selective Council records.
• It had not taken enough account of Mr and Mrs C’s information nor involved them enough in the investigation.
• It did not reach soundly based conclusions. In particular, Mr and Mrs C disputed the IO’s statements about how much help the Council provided to try and identify a new care provider for D.

41. The stage three hearing took place on 19 September 2018. The Panel had concerns about certain administrative matters. For example, in how the Council communicated the outcome of the meeting on 1 March 2018 through ‘action points’ and not minutes. Or when communicating staffing changes. The Panel considered the Council could have given more information to Mr and Mrs C about how it referred D’s case to individual care providers. It could also have given more information about the complaint procedure at stage two. But it did not uphold concerns about the content of the IO report. It recommended both the Council children’s services and adult services meet with Mr and Mrs C to “work together to achieve the best possible outcome for D”.
42. The panel concluded:

• It is very clear that the complainants’ son, D, needs support. The complainants have been active in their attempts to seek services that could fulfil D’s needs; funding is agreed but the complainants have not been able to find and secure the correct services.
• The Panel considered the Local Authority acted reasonably in its attempts to assist the complainants to seek the services that could meet D’s needs. These efforts were not unduly affected by the actions of the Local Authority’s social workers or managers.

My findings

43. I note there is no dispute in this case about what care D needs. His needs include receiving an outreach and befriending service. The issue at the crux of the complaint is that D has not received that since August 2017. Mr and Mrs C receive a direct payment to buy in that care themselves. But from the outset have made the Council aware of the difficulties they have in finding a suitable provider. The Council has accepted responsibility to try and help identify such a provider. But Mr and Mrs C argue whatever efforts it has made have been inadequate. They say it is at fault for not providing a service, whatever difficulties exist.
44. The investigation of Mr and Mrs C’s complaint up to now has not held this to be the case. All stages of the complaint procedure have found the Council has made reasonable efforts to identify a new care provider for D. They have concluded it faces the same difficulty faced by Mr and Mrs C in trying to identify such care. There are simply not enough providers in the area who can provide the care D needs.
45. I have conducted my own investigation and not simply relied on the chronology set out in the stage two investigation report. Having done so, I cannot come to any different conclusion. I have set out above the multiple efforts made by the Council to try and locate a suitable care provider for D. I have identified that its children’s services contacted at least twelve different providers, some on multiple occasions, to see if they could meet D’s needs between August 2017 and August 2018. It also tried to recruit a personal assistant directly through its brokerage service and put Mr and Mrs C in contact with another brokerage service. Unfortunately, none of these efforts succeeded in finding a provider who could meet D’s needs.
46. I consider the Council could have adopted a more systematic approach to its searches. At an early stage it could have drawn up a spreadsheet or chart showing all potential providers. It could then have checked monthly those who said they had no capacity at the first enquiry. It could also have identified those which could not meet D’s needs because he did not fit their client profile or for whom staff did not have training. Sharing this information with Mr and Mrs C would have offered assurance of the Council’s good faith and perhaps helped to rule out providers who could never meet D’s needs. I have also noted above those occasions where the Council has referred to communications with a provider but I cannot locate that.
47. I also note the Council agreed that in its meeting on 1 March 2018 it would assign a ‘team of interns’ to research alternative providers to meet D’s needs. This did not happen. I agree the Council acted in the spirit of this action when its social workers resumed their searches instead. But the Council should have clarified it had changed this plan when it took that decision.
48. So, I find the Council could have improved its record keeping and communications around its searches. But any room for improvement here would not justify a finding of fault. And nor do I consider it would it have resulted in a different outcome. Because I consider on balance the Council has not missed any opportunity to identify a provider which Mr and Mrs C have been unable to locate themselves.
49. I accept Mr and Mrs C have experienced frustration in getting so far with a provider, only to learn they cannot help D. But care providers will always want to conduct their own assessment of D’s needs. This might result in the service not proceeding. That is not something the Council can control. So again, there is no fault by the Council here.
50. As I do not find the Council could therefore identify an alternative care provider for D, I have also considered what alternatives it proposed to relieve pressure on Mr and Mrs C. The Council has no direct service provision it can offer. But I note the Council records Mr and Mrs C rejecting suggestions made clearly with the aim of providing them with some respite from their caring duties for D. These included the offer of a respite provision made in October 2017 and the suggestion D attend a play-scheme in February 2018.
51. I consider there were all reasonable propositions. Although, I also accept Mr and Mrs C had reasons for rejecting them. But I cannot see they have made alternative proposals to the Council for other services which might help lessen the stress caused by D not receiving his agreed outreach.
52. I also note Mr and Mrs C failed to attend, delayed or refused to attend a series of meetings with the Council from September 2017 onward. They have also rejected the support of various social workers and delayed the Council’s transitions service beginning their work with D. I consider this non-attendance by itself is unlikely to have effected what services the Council would provide for D. In other words, there is no evidence the Council would have provided more services for him had Mr and Mrs C attended. But there is evidence that Mr and Mrs C have been reluctant to consider alternatives or differing opinions about how best to support D away from the complaint about outreach services. None of which I have any reason to say were made in anything but good faith by the professionals involved in his care.
53. Nor can I ignore that it was Mr and Mrs C’s choice to cancel D’s first care provider in August 2017 without having an alternative provider in place. I recognise they had genuine concerns about the effectiveness of that service. It could no longer provide a carer who could drive. It could not support D as much as planned. But it still offered some support. Mr and Mrs C took a risk in cancelling the support with no alternative provision in place.
54. It was also Mr and Mrs C’s choice not to try and work with the care provider who attended their home in January 2018. I can understand their frustrations with that service. But they again preferred to cancel the service rather than trying to persevere to see if problems could be overcome. Mr and Mrs C therefore again chose to take a risk in cancelling potential support, not knowing when they or the Council may identify an alternative.
55. It was again Mr and Mrs C who chose not to work with the care provider who attended their home in August 2018. Although I note that with hindsight that always appeared destined to fail if the provider could not meet D’s needs.
56. All these are relevant considerations in deciding if the Council has been at fault in this case. It must work in partnership with parents. I find it has sometimes struggled to do that. Some of the responsibility for that may lie in its imperfect communications and some poor complaint handling (see below). But I am satisfied some of the responsibility also rests with Mr and Mrs C for decisions they have taken since August 2017. Although in saying this I recognise comments made by Mr and Mrs C pointing out that they have still attended some meetings with the Council, including D’s child in need reviews. I do not imply therefore they have ever disengaged entirely from working with the Council.
57. I consider a new chapter in the support offered to D began with him becoming an adult in October 2018. I can make no criticism of the early involvement of adult services in his care. I recognise problems in identifying outreach support for D remain ongoing. But it would be premature for me to take a view on any efforts made by the Council to identify such provision since D became an adult. But I would suggest it might record any future searches to identify care providers more comprehensively. For example, having a rolling plan that updates monthly to show what searches it has undertaken and that it can share with Mr and Mrs C.
58. I also encourage the Council to continue its efforts to identify other ways of meeting gaps in provision for children and young adults with D’s needs. It has sent me evidence of work currently being undertaken in this area. Unfortunately, this still appears in the early stages with no indication of what concrete improvements might result. But I would encourage it to let Mr and Mrs C know in the event this work results in anything which might be of practical benefit to D.

The Council’s complaint handling

59. I have considered separately how the Council has responded to Mr and Mrs C’s complaint. Here I consider it has been at fault.
60. Mr and Mrs C clearly indicated on 25 October 2017 they wanted to take their complaint to the next stage of the complaint procedure. Yet it took them three attempts for the Council to agree to this. Instead on two occasions the Council instead decided to refer their complaint back to the service manager who answered their stage one complaint.
61. I considered this unacceptable. I accept the Council acted in good faith and there was nothing to stop it continuing to work with Mr and Mrs C despite their outstanding complaint. Government guidance in support of the children’s services complaint procedure, contained in ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ says, “attempts at resolution should not end once a complaint has been made”. So, I do not criticise attempts by the service to set out steps being taken to support D or to meet with them. But the guidance also says authorities can take such measures “while any given stage is ongoing”. Attempts at resolution should usually run alongside the complaint procedure therefore and not be used as a substitute for it. If a resolution succeeds while an investigation continues, there will be nothing to stop the IO recognising this or the complainant withdrawing their complaint.
62. It was fault therefore for the Council not to begin its stage two investigation of Mr and Mrs C’s complaint sooner. While I cannot say this made any difference to the outcome of the complaint, I consider the Council’s rejection of Mr and Mrs C’s stage two requests added around five months of delay. It also added to their time and trouble. This is an injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy, as detailed below.
63. As a separate point, I also note the Council appeared to respond to the IO’s stage two report without having also received a report from the IP. That would not be good practice although I note the Council suggests it dated its letter of 29 June incorrectly. Even if this was not the case I consider any failing here made no difference in this case. Because the IP endorsed the IO’s report, the Council’s response to the stage two report would not have been different.

Agreed action

64. To remedy the injustice identified at paragraph 62 the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the handling of their complaint and resulting injustice.
• Pay them £150 in recognition of the injustice caused.

65. The Council has also reflected on its practice when referring stage two requests back to its children’s services. It has agreed this is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances; for example, where a stage two request appears to misunderstand the stage one response. It says in future it will not refer cases back to the service without the complainant’s consent. I am agreeable with this approach, noting that in all cases the Council can always try to resolve a complaint at whatever stage it has reached.

Back to top

Final decision

66. For the reasons explained above I uphold this complaint. While I do not find fault in the social services given by the Council to D or to Mr and Mrs C, I have found fault in its complaint handling. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy the complaint. I can therefore complete my investigation satisfied with its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman