Summary: The Council was at fault in the failure to review contact restrictions. This caused a family including members with disabilities, avoidable distress. The Council agreed to take action described in this statement including offering an advocate to Mr and Mrs X’s daughter. This is appropriate to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained Kent County Council (the Council) failed to review contact restrictions on her and since April 2021, included other family members in those restrictions.
2. She said the restrictions made it difficult for her and her family because some of them have disabilities and it causes distress.

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 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

5. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to us and documents from her and from the Council referred to later in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X.
6. Mrs X, her family and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. The Equality Act 2010 requires service providers and public bodies (including councils) to make reasonable adjustments (changes) to services if a person’s disability puts them at a disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled
8. Councils will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
9. Our Guidance on Managing Unreasonable complainant behaviour says unreasonably persistent complainants are those who because of the nature or frequency of their contacts, hinder the organisation’s ability to provide a service. In response, an organisation may restrict access. We expect councils who have imposed restrictions to have a named review date. We also expect them to lift restrictions and return relationships to normal unless there are good grounds to continue. We say a council needs to explain its reasons for continuing to limit contact and state when it will review them.

What happened

10. Mrs X has teenage children who have special educational needs. Her husband Mr X does not have any needs or disabilities that I am aware of. Mrs X has autism and ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).
11. In October 2020, the Council wrote to Mrs X saying it would not accept her as her son’s advocate, but it was willing to arrange an independent advocate.
12. In April 2021, the Council’s lawyers wrote to Mrs X placing restrictions on her contact with officers and limiting her to contacting it by letter only. This was because of her inappropriate behaviour and excessive emails and conduct during phone calls. One of the children and Mr X also received a letter limiting their contact to urgent email only or letter if the matter was not urgent. There was no date for review or acknowledgement of any disabilities in any of the letters.
13. In October 2021, the Council offered to appoint an advocate for Mrs X’s son. This was following a tribunal case management hearing where the Council was asked by the tribunal to consider an advocate. At the time of writing this statement, Mrs X’s son does not have an advocate. He did email a senior officer in the SEN team in November 2021 saying he wanted an advocate and would give instructions to the advocate through Mrs X.
14. Mrs X complained to us in January 2022. She and Mr X had also registered other complaints with us about SEN provision, SEN reviews and school transport.
15. I investigated and upheld another complaint from Mrs X (our reference 21004563) about the Council not attending a meeting to review of one of the children’s Education, Health and Care Plans and about non-provision of equipment in the plan. I found the Council to be at fault because when applying the restrictions on Mrs X’s contact in April 2021, the letter should have set out arrangements for reviewing those restrictions. I made recommendations to remedy the injustice, which the Council agreed to implement. The actions the Council agreed to undertake included an apology, payments and to:
• Arrange and fund mediation sessions between relevant officers in the SEN team, Mr and Mrs X and Ms Y (if Ms Y wishes to attend)
• Set out an agreed contract of communication, to be reviewed at least yearly or as appropriate. This needs to consider the disabilities of all family members.
16. Mrs X asked me if the communication restrictions would be lifted. I explained it was not our role to say, but if restrictions were going to continue after mediation, I would expect the Council to give reasons for this. I would also expect any contract of communication to apply across all council departments. I say this because the family have dealings with adult social care, the SEN team and the school transport team. They may need to have contact with other departments in the Council from time to time in the future and so I consider the Council needs to be clear about expectations around communication.
17. I recently closed the other complaint (21004563) and the parties have two months to complete the process of attending mediation and agreeing a contract of communication. (This can be extended if the timeframe slips, but I would expect mediation to be underway within two months).

Findings

18. The Council was at fault in the failure to review the contact restrictions on Mr and Mrs X and their son because we expect councils to review restrictions periodically to see if they still need to be in place and if the decision is to continue with restrictions, to explain why. We also expect councils to take account of disabilities when dealing with members of the public and consider if any reasonable adjustments are needed. There is no evidence the Council did this when applying contact restrictions to this family. This was not in line with the requirements of the Equality Act set out in paragraphs seven and eight. It caused avoidable distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council has already agreed as part of the resolution to complaint reference 21004563 to take action which remedies Mr and Mrs X’s injustice. In terms of the children, the Council as accepted my recommendation to offer Mrs X’s daughter an advocate within one month of this statement. I am aware Mrs X’s daughter has previously refused an advocate and would prefer for Mrs X to advocate for her, but I am of the view that she should be offered a chance to have an independent advocate again. If she does not want an advocate, that is fine.
20. I would have recommended the Council offer an advocate for Mrs X’s son but Mrs X told me that this matter is currently raised in an appeal to the SEND tribunal and so I do not need to recommend this.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council was at fault in the failure to review contact restrictions. This caused a family including members with disabilities, avoidable distress. The Council will take action described in this statement including offering an advocate to Mr and Mrs X’s daughter.
22. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman