Overview:

Key to names used

• Ms B the complainant

• Mr C her son

• School X a school attended by Mr C until April 2021

• School Y a school attended by Mr C from May 2021

• CP1 a respite care provider

• CP2 another respite care provider

• CP3 another respite care provider

• CP4 another respite care provider

• CP5 another respite care provider (identity unknown)

Summary

Ms B complained that after October 2019 the Council did not support her in arranging suitable respite care for her disabled son, Mr C. Ms B made separate complaints to the Council’s children and adult care services as her complaint spanned the time when Mr C moved between the two services.

Finding

Fault found causing injustice and recommendations made.

Recommendations

The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

The Council should provide Ms B with the following personal remedy.

• An unqualified apology from a senior officer (Director level or above) recognising the injustice she has been caused.

• A payment of £3,000 to recognise the loss of service experienced by her and Mr C; it should pay Ms B £500 to recognise her distress and an additional

  £500 to recognise her time and trouble – making £4,000 in total.

• Agree that for so long as it is needed the Council will provide Ms B with direct payments to fund respite care for Mr C, from his existing respite provider, at the same level he received before October 2019. It can withdraw this support once Mr C moves to another placement where such respite is no longer needed (he is due to move to supported living accommodation soon).

The Council should also undertake the following procedural improvements.

• It should carry out further work to understand why, when Mr C was a client of its children’s services, it did not do more to search for, or record, how his respite care needs could be met between December 2019 and December 2020.

• End its practice of delaying the registration of stage two complaints made under the statutory complaint process for children’s complaints to await clarification or meetings.

• Brief all staff in its transitions service to make it clear the Council should not seek to refuse or limit care choices based on cost, or through comparison with national or local averages.

Ombudsman satisfied with Council's response: 18 May 2023.

Print this page