Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to properly assess her son when deciding he did not qualify for services from the disabled children’s team. There is no fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs B’s son’s needs.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council:
• failed to properly consider her son’s needs or the medical information provided when carrying out assessments since 2014;
• failed to properly apply its own criteria when considering her son’s needs; and
• failed to offer suitable support for her son.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mrs B’s concerns about assessments the Council carried out in 2017 and 2019. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the earlier period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mrs B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint, Mrs B's comments and the comments of Mrs B’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision; and
• considered Mrs B’s representative’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Mrs B’s son has various medical conditions, attends a special school and has an education, health and care plan. In 2014 and 2016 the Council assessed Mrs B’s son and decided he did not qualify for services from the disabled children’s team (tier 4 services).
8. In 2017 Mrs B asked the Council for help as she was finding it difficult to provide the care her son needed. The Council carried out another assessment. The Council decided the family could meet Mrs B’s son’s needs and he therefore did not qualify for services from the disabled children’s team. Mrs B challenged that decision and a manager reviewed the assessment and spoke to Mrs B. The reviewing officer decided the assessment was correct and Mrs B’s son did not meet the criteria for the disabled children’s team. The Council offered tier 3 services which Mrs B declined.
9. In 2019 Mrs B’s MP contacted the Council on Mrs B’s behalf. The MP asked the Council to provide four hours support per week for Mrs B’s son and provided supporting information from medical professionals and the son’s school. The Council carried out a further assessment. That assessment again decided Mrs B’s son did not meet the criteria for support from the disabled children’s team. That was because officers did not consider Mrs B’s son needed substantial support, did not need constant supervision and had a moderate learning disability. A manager reviewed that assessment and agreed it was accurate. The Council referred Mrs B to tier 3 services.

The Children Act 1989

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (CA) says:
• It shall be the general duty of every local authority:
• (a)to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
• (b)so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
11. Section 17(10) of the CA says a child shall be taken to be in need if:
• (a)he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this part;
• (b)his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or
• (c)he is disabled, and “family”, in relation to such a child, includes any person who has parental responsibility for the child and any other person with whom he has been living.
12. Schedule 2 part 1 of the CA says:
• Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area.
• Every local authority shall:
• (a)publish information:
• (i)about services provided by them under sections 17, 18 and 23D; and
• (ii)where they consider it appropriate, about the provision by others (including, in particular, voluntary organisations) of services which the authority have power to provide under those sections; and
• (b)take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that those who might benefit from the services receive the information relevant to them.

The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

13. Part 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (CSDPA) says local authorities have a duty to provide the support a disabled child is assessed as needing and lists the type of support that could be provided as:
• (a)the provision of practical assistance for that person in his home;
• (b)the provision for that person of, or assistance to that person in obtaining, wireless, television, library or similar recreational facilities;
• (c)the provision for that person of lectures, games, outings or other recreational facilities outside his home or assistance to that person in taking advantage of educational facilities available to him;
• (d)the provision for that person of facilities for, or assistance in, travelling to and from his home for the purpose of participating in any services provided under arrangements made by the authority under the said section 29 or, with the approval of the authority, in any services provided otherwise than as aforesaid which are similar to services which could be provided under such arrangements;
• (e)the provision of assistance for that person in arranging for the carrying out of any works of adaptation in his home or the provision of any additional facilities designed to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience;
• (f)facilitating the taking of holidays by that person, whether at holiday homes or otherwise and whether provided under arrangements made by the authority or otherwise;
• (g)the provision of meals for that person whether in his home or elsewhere;
• (h)the provision for that person of, or assistance to that person in obtaining, a telephone and any special equipment necessary to enable him to use a telephone.

Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance

14. The guidance says where a child’s need is relatively low level, individual services and universal services may be able to take swift action. Where there are more complex needs, help may be provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
15. It is important there are clear criteria amongst all organisations and agencies working with children and families for taking action and providing help across this full continuum to ensure services are commissioned effectively and the right help is given to the child at the right time
16. The safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document, which sets out the local criteria for action in a way that is transparent, accessible and easily understood.
17. When undertaking an assessment of a disabled child, the local authority must also consider whether it is necessary to provide support under section 2 of the CSDPA. Where a local authority is satisfied the identified services and assistance can be provided under section 2 of the CSDPA, and it is necessary in order to meet a disabled child’s needs, it must arrange to provide that support.

The Council’s Access to Specialist Services for Disabled Children

18. The Council’s ‘Access to Specialist Services for Disabled Children’ departmental procedure is the document introduced to implement the guidance referred to in paragraph 17. It says access to specialist services for disabled children are available only to the most severely disabled children with the highest level of needs. It notes Government guidance requires local authorities to review eligibility criteria to ensure the criteria focus on those with complex and severe needs.
19. The procedure says access to specialist services will continue to be available to those with the highest level of need where a child, due to his or her level of disability, requires total or substantial support appropriate to their age which is unavailable within the family network. The policy makes clear the examples it provides in the criteria are intended to be interpreted within the context of this statement. i.e. that the child requires total or substantial support which is unavailable within the family network.
20. The policy says those who do not meet the criteria but are requesting support will be directed to the local offer, short break programme, parent voice and/or early help.
21. The eligibility criteria for access to specialist social care services sets the criteria as:
• In order to achieve outcomes appropriate to their potential and as a result of their disability, the child requires total or substantial support, appropriate to their age, from another person, which is not available within the family network.
22. It then says the examples are, to be read in conjunction with the above statement:
• child uses specialist equipment for mobility;
• child requires support for all basic self-care functions when no longer age-appropriate;
• child needs constant supervision throughout the day and for prolonged periods at night when no longer age-appropriate;
• child has behaviour as a result of disability that is a serious risk to self and or others including self harm;
• child has communication needs which without support severely affects personal safety. I.e. is deaf, blind or without speech;
• child has been assessed as having profound and multiple learning disability, severe learning disability or autism with challenging behaviour, which results in a significant risk of self-harm or harm to others.

Analysis

23. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council’s 2017 assessment was comprehensive. I say that because I note the assessment referred to Mrs B’s son’s medical diagnosis and needs, the criteria for the disabled children’s team and set out the officer’s reasoning about why Mrs B’s son did not meet the criteria for tier 4 services. I am also satisfied another officer not involved in the assessment considered the assessment when Mrs B raised some concerns about its accuracy. I am satisfied that officer considered the assessment and spoke to Mrs B before deciding Mrs B’s son did not meet the criteria for tier 4 services. I recognise Mrs B strongly disagrees with that decision. However, as I said in paragraph 4, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a decision the Council has reached without fault. As I am satisfied the Council decided Mrs B’s son did not qualify for tier 4 services in 2017 after properly assessing his case and carrying out a review I have no grounds to criticise it.
24. For the 2019 assessment I am satisfied this was also comprehensive. I am satisfied in completing the 2019 assessment the social worker met with Mrs B, her son and her daughter. I am also satisfied the 2019 assessment specifically addressed the criteria for the disabled children’s team and set out the officer’s view about why Mrs B’s son did not qualify for services from that team. I am satisfied a manager reviewed that recommendation and agreed with it. I am also satisfied when Mrs B raised concerns about the decision the Council addressed those concerns in a detailed letter explaining why it did not consider Mrs B’s son met the eligibility criteria for the disabled children’s team. Given all that I could not say the Council failed to consider Mrs B’s son properly. Clearly the Council has reached a decision with which Mrs B strongly disagrees. I understand why she would take that view. However, as I have made clear, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault, as is the case here.
25. In reaching that view I am aware Mrs B says the Council has breached section 17 of the CA and section 2 of the CSDPA, which I refer to in paragraphs 10-13. Mrs B says her child is a child in need because of his disability and the Council is therefore obliged to provide satisfactory services to meet his assessed needs and carry out its legal duty. The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance, which I refer to in paragraphs 15 and 16, is clear though those working with children are expected to have a clear criteria for assessing what help families are entitled to. I set out in paragraphs 21 and 22 the criteria the Council follows for assessing children. I am satisfied that criteria makes clear the Council will only provide the support Mrs B has asked for where it considers the child needs total or substantial support from another person which is not available within the family network.
26. I am satisfied both the 2017 and 2019 assessments properly assessed Mrs B’s son under the Council’s eligibility criteria. For both assessments the Council decided Mrs B’s son did not need total or substantial support. That is not to say the Council did not identify Mrs B’s son would not benefit from a different service. Both assessments decided Mrs B’s son’s needs could be met using a mixture of universal services and short break services. That included disability challengers which Mrs B son had previously attended, a community buddy scheme and support to attend Scouts. So, as well as assessing Mrs B’s son properly I am satisfied the Council identified services for her son to access. So, I do not consider the Council has breached the CA or the CSDPA in not providing the service Mrs B is seeking.
27. In reaching that view I am aware Mrs B says the community buddy scheme is not suitable for her son and there are no suitable buddies available in her area. I understand Mrs B’s concern. I am satisfied the Council has raised the lack of buddies with the provider for it to address. As I said in the previous paragraph though, the Council also suggested other provision, including the disability challengers which it considers suitable for Mrs B’s son. I recognise Mrs B’s son said he does not want to access that service. Nevertheless, the fact the Council made the service available means I could not say it had left Mrs B’s son without provision. I therefore do not consider the Council has acted with fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I have not investigated Mrs B’s concerns about the assessments carried out in 2014 and 2016. That is because Mrs B did not bring her complaint to the Ombudsman, or to the Council, within 12 months of those assessments taking place. I see no reason to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate how the Council carried out those assessments in those circumstances.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman