Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to act on the agreed actions in a Children in Need plan put in place for her daughter, C. The Council has delayed carrying out the agreed actions in the plan and offered in response to the complaint. The Council should make payment to remedy the impact on Mrs X and C and make changes to its policies and procedures.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out the agreed actions in the Children in Need plan put in place for her daughter, C. She says the Council failed to complete the following actions
• Failed to arrange respite care,
• Failed to provide a social activity, and
• Failed to carry out a carer’s assessment.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions meant that C has missed out on the support she needed and believes this has impacted her recovery from her mental health struggles. Mrs X says this has also caused her and her family 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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
8. Mrs X and the organisation have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
10. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

11. It requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
12. The expectation of ‘Working Together’ is that an assessment which identifies significant needs will generally lead to the provision of services, but its not the case that there is a duty to meet every assessed need. Whether a service is required is dependent on the nature and extent of the need assessed and the consequences of not providing a service. Councils may use eligibility criteria and take into account their available resources when providing services under section 17 of the Children Act.
13. If a council is satisfied it is ‘necessary’ to provide support services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 then services must be provided regardless of the council’s resources.

Children’s statutory complaints process

14. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review.
15. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

16. C has a diagnosis of autism and has an autism related eating disorder. A referral was made to the Council in November 2020 for C due to concerns about her eating. The Council accepted the referral and began a children and family assessment (CFA) in the beginning of December.
17. The assessment was completed at the end of January 2021. A transfer meeting was held where the assessment was discussed. The assessment recommended the following actions:
• To discuss parenting skills in the next two weeks.
• Liaison with Children and Adult Mental Health Services (CAMHS).
• Follow up on the clinical psychologist meetings every two weeks.
• Follow up on weekly weigh ins.
• Work with family regarding educational needs and suitable education provision.
• Allocate respite care and discuss with parents their views.

A number of staff were recorded in the complaint investigation as saying the plan should be dealt with by the Children and Young Persons Disability team, but the matter was transferred to the Localities Team.

18. The Council’s complaint response says a CIN plan was agreed at the following meeting on 17 March 2021. This identified seven actions. Five were to be completed in the next month and two were to be completed in the next two months.
19. In March the social worker took steps to enquire about respite care with another department. The email was sent to an old email address, but this was not identified or followed up. Mrs X requested at this time that the Council consider supporting them by funding the equine therapy she had been paying for.
20. A review meeting in April 2021 did not go ahead as the social worker was unavailable. No notice was sent to the relevant parties about the need to cancel or to rearrange, and as a result they did turn up for the meeting.
21. In early May the Council concluded that it was not within its remit to fund equine therapy, as therapy meant it was a health rather than social need. Mrs X raised concerns. The Council requested cost information from her to look into it further. It then agreed to fund eight weeks.
22. The CIN plan was reviewed in May 2021. The review noted that many of the actions had not been achieved. Following this meeting Mrs X raised a complaint. She was concerned that a number of the targets had not been met, there were some inaccuracies in the plan, the communication had been poor and there were discrepancies in the outcome of assessments between siblings.
23. Following the review meeting in May 2021 the Council decided to close the CIN plan as there were no safeguarding concerns. It wrote to Mrs X in mid-June to confirm this.
24. Mrs X received a stage one complaint response and asked for it to be escalated to stage two in late May. The stage two response, issued in September 2021, upheld all six complaints. The independent officer recommended the Council should:
• Reopen the CIN case, carry out a new Children and Family Assessment and develop a new CIN plan in collaboration with the relevant parties.
• Ensure C is supported by a team of relevant specialists with knowledge of children with complex needs/disabilities and their families.
• Ensure service managers provide support on complex cases on social work practice and standards.
• Audit all CIN cases and CIN plans with the department to ensure they are being carried out and reviewed regularly.
• Provide training on how to address the needs of children with autism and mental health difficulties and support their families.
• Ensure social workers make it clear which family members are included in the plan and why others are excluded.
• Put in place a system where managers check CIN plans are achievable.
• Provide easier contact mechanisms between the locality teams and the children and young people with disability service.
25. The Council agreed to:
• Carry out a new CFA assessment which would determine if a new CIN plan was required.
• To explore respite and social outlets.
• Review all CIN for children where the child has additional needs in the locality.
• Provide training on autism.
• Provide a workshop for managers to increase knowledge of the Children and Young People with Disabilities service.
• Pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the impact on her and her family.
26. Mrs X was unhappy with the stage two remedies and asked for the matter to be escalated to stage three. Mrs X was concerned about a further assessment being carried out, she did not feel a further assessment amounted to enough support and wanted the Council to provide short breaks. She was also concerned the Council had been dismissive of recommendations to improve practice and procedures.
27. In November 2021, the stage three investigation upheld the complaints, and the following remedies were proposed:
• Carry out a Family Needs Assessment (FNA) and discuss with Mrs X the best way to do this.
• For the Council to liaise and be involved with the Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) review.
• The Council to refund the equine therapy sessions.
• The Council to discuss and if agreed arrange a carers assessment for Mrs X.
28. In early December the Council issued a stage 3 response. It agreed to the following remedies:
• For C’s GP to carry out a Family Needs Assessment.
• To send an attendee to the EHCP review meeting.
• To refund equine costs.
• To arrange a carers assessment.
29. Mrs X says the GP did carry out the assessment, but they were not experienced at completing these. She says they were unsure what to do. She doesn’t feel, therefore, that they were a suitable person as recommended by the panel.
30. The Council carried out an Early Help Assessment Tool (EHAT) assessment for respite care in late December 2021. In January 2022 the Council awarded a short breaks respite package to C in the form of horse riding. The Council say this was awarded for 12 months at a cost of £2,028. It says it has repaid Mrs X £925 for the costs of this in 2021.
31. By early August 2022 the Council had completed the Carer’s Assessment. The report issued following this recommended that C have a children and family assessment carried out and be referred to the children and young people with disabilities service.
32. The Carer’s Assessment report was issued in September 2022. It recommended that a new CFA was carried out and the case be referred to a specialist team.
33. Mrs X says no social outlet has been organised. Whilst the Council say this is provided through the horse riding.

Findings

34. The stage two and stage three statutory complaints process found fault in the Council’s handling of the CIN plan. It found the Council had not provided the outcomes detailed in the plan or given the support required to Mrs C. It also found issues with the management of staff in the relevant department.
35. The Council agreed to refund respite costs incurred, to attend the EHCP review, and carry out new assessments at the conclusion of stage three. Mrs X says the refund of respite costs and the agreement to fund further sessions has resolved this complaint. However, she is concerned about how the Council has carried out the assessment and the timescales. She does not feel the remedy addresses all of the provision C missed when the CIN plan was not acted upon. She also feels the Council should have acted on the service improvement recommendations.
36. It is positive the Council has itself recognised there were faults in the CIN plan and how it was carried out. When considering whether the Council’s offer is appropriate, I must consider the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified. I will consider the remedies offered in turn.
37. The Council’s actions in refunding the costs incurred by Mrs X for equine therapy has addressed the financial impact on her by the Council’s failure to provide respite care as agreed in the CIN plan. I appreciate the delay in arranging respite care means that Mrs X had to incur these costs directly and go to the inconvenience of raising a complaint to recover them. The Council’s offer does not reflect this.
38. I appreciate that Mrs X feels the GP was not suitably qualified to carry out the FNA assessment. The Council discussed who would be appropriate to assess C in discussion with Mrs X. The person carrying out the assessment does not need to be a social worker but a suitably qualified person to determine the needs of an individual. It also had to consider, in this instance, C’s selective mutism and mental health which means she will only speak to a select number of people and can affected by the introduction of new people. I cannot see any fault in the Council’s decision-making process and therefore cannot criticise its decision to ask the GP to carry out the assessment.
39. The Council agreed to carry out a carer’s assessment for Mrs X. It noted in its stage three response that it had made a request to adults services. During my investigation it has accepted this referral was incorrect and caused unnecessary delay in the assessment being carried out. The assessment was not carried out until August and the report produced in September 2022. Had the Council not caused delays, the recommendation for further action would have been received sooner. As such there is fault in how the Council performed the remedy.
40. The Council has indicated during my investigation that the horse riding amounts to both a respite and a social activity. When the Council drafted the CIN plan it listed the arranging of respite and social activities as two separate objectives. It was therefore reasonable for Mrs X to expect different activities to be arranged for this.
41. In the stage two response the Council said it would explore respite and social outlets. The phrasing again implies this would be two different activities. There is no evidence the Council has explained to Mrs X that the horse riding is serving two purposes even during her complaint. I consider the Council’s decision to use one activity to achieve dual objectives without communicating this to be fault.
42. The stage two response highlighted concerns about the lack of staff knowledge about other departments notably the children’s and young persons with disability service. It recommended training to increase knowledge and awareness. The Council agreed to do this with service managers. The Council did provide training. The training explained what the team does, went into detail about short respite breaks and how to apply for them.
43. The stage two response also recommended the Council review all CIN cases to check there were no similar cases. The Council declined to accept this recommendation. The Council says it has systems in place to check CIN plans and ensure reviews go ahead. I note these policies were in place at the time C’s CIN plan was in place. The Council system for ensuring CIN reviews did not alert it to the fact one had been missed on this occasion. Similarly, the Council’s review does not appear to have alerted it to the fact that several key steps had not been taken. As such I am not satisfied the Council’s processes would prevent this occurring for other service users.

Back to top

Recommended action

44. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
• Pay Mrs X £300 for the avoidable distress and frustration experienced by her and her family due to the delay in receiving the support offered in the CIN plan. The Council should pay a further £150 for the delay in providing the carers assessment offered as a remedy.
• Pay Mrs X £200, for the benefit of C, for the risk of harm she was placed at after the Council failed to act on the CIN plan they deemed necessary.
45. Within three months of the final decision the Council should:
• Review its policy and procedures for the review and closure of CIN plans to ensure they include checking whether objectives have been achieved.
• Remind staff of the importance of ensuring CIN plan objectives have been met.
• Review its policy guidance on carers assessments to make sure there is clear information to staff on when and how to request an assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to personal injustice. The Council have agreed to remedy the injustice and prevent reoccurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman