Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council in failing to provide social care support for her two children, C and D since late 2018, delay in carrying out a carer’s assessment and delay in dealing with her complaint about the matter. We found the Council delayed in finding suitable support for C at different points amounting to approximately 18 months in total. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £1000 and review its commissioning service.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that Worcestershire County Council (the Council) in respect of her two children, C and D:
• failed to carry out adequate social care assessments of both children, taking into account the needs of the whole family;
• delayed in providing adequate social care support to C and D since November 2018;
• delayed in carrying out and implementing a carer’s assessment; and
• delayed in completing the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. The situation has caused significant distress and frustration to the whole family. Specifically, Mrs B has been unable to work, family relationships have deteriorated and the whole family has suffered stress which has impacted on their health. Mrs B has also had to pay for support and independent social work assessments.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Mrs B’s complaint from November 2018 (the end point of our investigation into a previous complaint about similar issues). I have exercised discretion to consider the whole period because there was significant delay in the statutory complaints process, and this was the second time Mrs B had complained to us about social care provision for her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. 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

What I found

Statutory children’s complaints procedure

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
14. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

15. Mrs B has two children, C and D. They both have autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and additional needs.

Previous complaint

16. Mrs B complained to us previously regarding C’s special educational needs and his Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. This included consideration of his social care needs. We found the Council delayed in identifying C’s social care needs and providing support from March 2017 to November 2018 and recommended a payment to acknowledge the lost social care provision.

Child C

17. From November 2018 the Council agreed to provide a support worker for four hours a week to help C participate in leisure activities and give Mrs B some respite. This support was provided by direct payments which means the money was paid direct to Mrs B to allow her to employ a support worker of her choice.

2019

18. Mrs B struggled to find a support worker and said the direct payments were too low. The Council said it was a set rate used by the children with disabilities (CWD) team. In February 2019 the Council started to look for a provider. In March 2019 the Council found an agency who could provide a support worker. Mrs B raised concerns that they were not experienced enough. The provider said the worker had four years of experience. The Council agreed to fund four forest school sessions, which C had been attending for some time and had been sourced by Mrs B. The provider withdrew its offer to support C due to Mrs B’s concerns.
19. In April 2019 the Council carried out a carer’s assessment. It noted Mrs B had been paying for private counselling but could no longer afford to do so and this was upsetting. She asked if the Council would fund some therapy. The social worker did not know if funding was available for this purpose and agreed to check with their manager.
20. The Council continued to search for a support worker and continued to fund sessions at the forest school during the holidays in the interim. It also funded seven full day sessions with another provider over the summer. Mrs B does not recall that this support went ahead.
21. By the autumn of 2019, the Council had still not found anyone, and it had not been able to identify a specific reason why not. The Council discussed the possibility of overnight stays for C to provide some respite for Mr and Mrs B and D. Mrs B felt these would not be appropriate for C due to his high levels of anxiety.

2020

22. In February 2020 a different provider picked up the package and made an introductory visit in March 2020. The worker had experience of C’s specific needs and Mrs B was happy with them.
23. But the support worker could not start due to the COVID19 lockdown from 23 March 2020. The agency said they would be available to pick up the package when the restrictions eased. The Council provided Mrs B, following her request, with financial support under section 17 of the Children’s Act to support the family during this period with both children at home all the time. C’s social worker left the Council in September 2020.
24. In November 2020 C’s case was allocated to a new social worker who tried to re-engage the support worker, but a second lockdown prevented this happening. In December 2020 Mrs B raised concerns that the support worker was no longer appropriate, and she wished to pursue a mentor for C to support C’s transition to school. This was more of an educational rather than social care provision. She explained to the social worker that she did not wish to re-engage the support worker because she was concerned it was too much change after all the COVID19 disruption. The social worker also started an assessment of C and D.

2021

25. The assessment was completed in March 2021. Mrs B strongly disagreed with the assessment and said it was inadequate. The social worker’s manager considered it was a balanced and holistic piece of work which recommended child in need plans for C and D, recognised Mrs B’s caring responsibilities for her father, signposted Mrs B to adult social care and to a local carers’ association for support for her, with the social worker offering to complete the referral for her. The assessment recognised the additional strain that transporting the children to their individual educational settings was causing and offered support via specialist family support workers. It considered Mrs B’s health needs and the impact on her as a parent and carer and her ability to work. It concluded C’s four hours a week of support was still appropriate.
26. Between April and June 2021 the social worker liaised with the SEN department and C’s school in respect of the mentor provision. On 10 June 2021 the school and the Council agreed a mentor package of ten hours a week and that in addition the mentor would provide the four support hours after school, at weekends and during the holidays. The SEN team refused to fund the mentor support which caused delay.
27. In the meantime, the social care team agreed to fund a teaching assistant to provide the four hours of support or revisit a support worker for C as originally agreed. The school and SEND failed to find a suitable link worker/mentor and so the social care team started to look for an agency support worker again.
28. In August 2021 the Council offered overnight respite of two nights a month. Mr and Mrs B declined saying it was not the right moment for C or D but they might consider it in the future. The Council also carried out another parent/carer assessment. The assessment recognised Mr and Mrs B’s caring responsibilities and the intention of the respite provision for both C and D to relieve some of the pressures. The assessments recognised Mrs B’s own health needs and her other caring responsibilities and recommended a referral to adult social care in her own right. It also recommended seeking advice about counselling through their GP.
29. The Council found a support worker for C in October 2021. She started to get to know C and his needs. In December 2021 the worker left, but the agency had an alternative worker who could start immediately. Mrs B expressed frustration at the change so soon. In January 2022 Mr and Mrs B declined further support for C because they considered he was very vulnerable at that stage. In February 2022 the Council agreed an increased direct payment rate to assist with the search.
30. At the end of March 2022 Mr and Mrs B said they did not wish to pursue the direct payments route anymore and wanted to go back to looking at agencies. In May 2022 the Council agreed to increased hours to find a link worker who could support C with the transition to and from school. The Council identified a worker at the end of June 2022, but both the school and Mr and Mrs B did not consider they were suitable. The Council identified another possible worker and Mr and Mrs B restarted a direct payment search for a trainee psychologist to undertake the link worker role. The second agency worker withdrew in August 2022, but the agency identified another worker. The Council asked for Mrs B’s view.
31. The Council said it had limited contact with the family during the school holidays.
32. In October 2022 the Council agreed that a support worker working for D could also provide 20 hours of support to C while the search for a link worker continued. C was now out of education. The worker was unable to do the extra hours, but the Council had identified another worker. Mrs B said the worker was not suitable after an informal meeting because they could not meet C’s needs, he was experiencing anxiety and too much change would be overwhelming.
33. The Council considers Mr and Mrs B are very specific in their requirements for a support worker for C and this is reducing the opportunities for respite to be provided. The Council says it has other young people with a similar needs profile to C who have very successful support worker and overnight respite packages.
34. Mrs B believes the Council has repeatedly failed to understand C’s very complex needs and the significant ongoing impact on the whole family, or provide suitable support to address these issues. She has provided a letter from her GP in January 2022 describing the significant and debilitating impact on her mental health.

Child D

35. In July 2020 the Council agreed to do a social work assessment of D as Mrs B had said she was a young carer. The assessment was completed in September 2020. The Council concluded that D did not meet the criteria for the CWD team and was not a young carer: she could be supported by the universal services offered by the Council (the local offer). Mrs B disagreed with the assessment and thought it was inadequate.
36. In November 2020 the special educational needs and disability (SEND) tribunal recommended as part of an appeal hearing regarding D’s special educational needs, that the Council do a further social work assessment of the whole family’s needs.
37. The assessment was completed in March 2021 (see paragraph 25 above). In respect of D, the assessment concluded she was not eligible for a short breaks package, but she would benefit from the local offer. The Council considered there were many suitable options within the local offer including specialist support from autism support groups.
38. Following concerns raised by Mrs B about D’s anxiety about accessing groups without support the Council agreed at the end of April 2021 that D should receive three hours a week of support to access groups and referred her case to the commissioning team. It found a provider in June 2021 who gave four sessions in July and August 2021. They then resigned due to ill health and the Council found a new worker in September 2021.
39. In April 2022 the Council increased D’s support package to nine hours a week during the school holidays to provide additional respite for Mr and Mrs B, recognising the pressure arising from the fact that C’s support package was still not in place. The Council agreed a similar increase over the summer holidays and at Christmas.
40. Mrs B says this is only an ad-hoc arrangement and was agreed too close to the school holidays to make book any suitable sessions. She says it has not been agreed for all holiday periods.

Formal complaint

Stage one

41. Mrs B made a formal complaint in April 2021 about the:
• failure to provide suitable services for C.
• failure to work holistically with other departments.
• disregard of D’s right to a social care assessment and the inadequate assessment in September 2020.
• delay from November 2020 to March 2021 in completing a new assessment for D.
• inadequacy of the new assessment; it failed to recommend suitable support and failed to assess whole family’s needs.
• CWD team criteria which discriminate against children with autism.
• lack of contact since lockdown started in January 2021.
• lack of assistance to Mr and Mrs B as carers.
42. The Council responded in May 2021. It did not uphold the complaint. It acknowledged there were some delays in securing a support worker for C, but other services were provided during the interim. The social workers liaised closely with Mrs B during this period. The Council did not consider the criteria for the CWD team discriminated against children with autism. It said the team could only deal with those children with the most complex needs and those it helped who had autism tended to also have another significant health need as well. It accepted it had delayed for approximately a month in starting the social work assessment after the SEND tribunal decision in November. It apologised for this. It did not agree that it had not communicated with Mrs B during the latest lockdown period and listed the communication attempts.

Stage two

43. Mrs B requested a stage two investigation on 11 July 2021. She said:
• the direct payments offered in November 2018 were too low to find a suitable support worker.
• the social work assessment in September 2020 was inadequate and this was supported by the SEND tribunal.
• the criteria for the CWD team were discriminatory.
• the Council had delayed in carrying out an adequate parent carer assessment and she was on a 12 month waiting list for counselling.
• the local offer was not suitable for D and this had been recognised by the new social worker who had recommended a support package of three hours per week.
44. Mrs B complained to us about the delay in completing the stage two investigation. On 31 January 2022, we issued a decision requiring the investigation to be completed within one month.
45. The stage two report was completed on 10 February 2022, four months late due to medical issues affecting the Investigating Officer (IO). Out of eleven heads of complaint the IO did not uphold nine and said they were unable to make a finding on two, including the complaint about the failure to secure support for C, due to a lack of documents from the commissioning team. They agreed there were lengthy delays but noted the Commissioning team had advertised C’s case on eight occasions between April and December 2019. In their conclusions the IO said:

“It is clear that over the latter years there have been delays in obtaining suitable support in particular from outside companies. Part of this has been the difficulties experienced by [the Council] in obtaining such support. This has been coupled with the reluctance of the parents to accept some of the support offered and the isolation requirements brought about by Covid.”

46. The Council sent Mr and Mrs B its adjudication response on 15 February 2022. It disagreed with the IO on the attempts to provide support for C. It said this complaint had not been upheld at stage one and the IO had not found any evidence to dispute this finding. It noted that the Council had signposted Mr and Mrs B to other services such as the local offer, training and support groups. It offered overnight stays, funded forest school sessions and provided sensory toys and equipment during the lockdown. It changed this finding to ‘not upheld’.

Stage three

47. On 2 March 2022 Mrs B escalated the complaint to stage three. She complained to us in June 2022 about the delay in convening the stage three panel. We issued a decision on 9 August 2022 requiring the panel to be held within 30 days and the Council agreed to pay Mrs B £100.
48. The Review Panel considered the case on 24 August 2022. The Council said the delay was due to the IO not being fit enough to attend the Panel and the chair did not want to go ahead without them. The Review Panel wrote to Mr and Mrs B on 1 September 2022. It said Mrs B had acknowledged that there had been some progression on the issues, but she was distressed her complaints had not been upheld and that the needs of the whole family were not being recognised.
49. The Panel was satisfied that the investigation had been properly undertaken and the Panel commended the very detailed investigation report. The Panel recommended that the Council give Mrs B a full explanation of the criteria for the CWD team and procedural improvements for child-in-need meeting minutes.
50. The Director of Children’s Services wrote to Mr and Mrs B on 21 September 2022.
51. Mrs B complained again to us in October 2022. The Council carried out another assessment of the family in November 2022.
52. Mrs B says she has not received the £100 from the previous complaint and did not receive the Council’s letter of 21 September 2022.

Analysis

53. I have not considered any events before November 2018 as we previously considered a complaint about this period. I have also noted we have already investigated and upheld two complaints about delay in the statutory complaints procedure. The Council considered the complaints within our recommended timescales and agreed to pay Mrs B £100.
54. Aside from the delay I consider the Council dealt with the complaints in accordance with the statutory complaints procedure guidance. The Review Panel found the stage two report to be very detailed and did not uphold any of the complaints. I realise Mrs B was distressed by this outcome hence her complaint to us. Given the complex nature of the complaint I have reviewed the sequence of events leading to the complaint and have looked at the following aspects of the complaint as made by Mrs B.

failed to carry out adequate social care assessments of both children, taking into account the needs of the whole family

55. It is not my role to intervene in the content of the social care assessments unless I have found fault with the way they were made. I consider the assessment done in March 2021 was comprehensive and detailed and I have not identified fault in the way it was done. The social worker met with all members of the family and made a detailed assessment of the impacts this was having on them all. It reiterated that four hours of support had been agreed and was available for C and the social worker was making efforts to once again find a suitable support worker. In respect of D, the assessment explained why initially the social worker considered D’s needs could be met by the local offer. When Mrs B raised concerns about this view the social worker arranged a support package for her.
56. I note that since Mrs B complained to us the Council has carried out another assessment of the children and concluded that the current support is appropriate. I understand Mr and Mrs B disagree strongly with the content of this assessment. but it is outside the period of my investigation and the Council has not had the opportunity to consider a complaint about it.

delayed in providing adequate social care support to C and D since November 2018

57. In respect of C, I accept that the Council made reasonable efforts from April 2019 to February 2020, to find a support worker for C. However, the Council did not succeed, and C was without regular support throughout most of this year during term-time. I note he did receive forest school sessions during the holidays and the Council offered overnight respite, but he did not receive a service to meet his identified needs and so I have found fault during this period in terms of a service failure.
58. The COVID19 restrictions stopped a service being provided from March 2020 after a suitable worker was found. This was not fault by the Council. However the Council did not make contact with Mrs B or the agency until November 2020, even once restrictions had been eased in July 2020. I consider this was fault from the start of the autumn term in September 2020, when steps could have been taken to re-engage the agency. By the time this happened in December 2020 Mrs B no longer felt it was appropriate. It was a missed opportunity.
59. After the March 2021 assessment the social worker made efforts to find a combined mentor/support worker but unfortunately this was unsuccessful. Again, I am not criticising the individual officer actions, but I have concluded this amounted to service failure as no service was provided until October 2021. Although I note forest school sessions continued during the holiday periods and the Council offered overnight respite again which was declined as it was not suitable for C.
60. After the support worker left in December 2021 the Council offered an alternative worker immediately but Mrs B declined as she did not feel the support was suitable for C at that time. I have not found fault here.
61. Between February and October 2022 when Mrs B complained to us, I note the Council made efforts to provide the service by increasing the direct payment rate and looking again at agencies. This took time and Mrs B again rejected workers in June and August 2022 as unsuitable. She says other professionals agreed with her view on this point. So, while there was some service failure because the efforts were not ultimately successful, there was some contribution by Mrs B in declining offers of support workers on several occasions.
62. In respect of provision of support for D, I have not found fault. In September 2020 the Council assessed that she was not eligible for services from the CWD and explained the reasons why. Mrs B may disagree with that decision, but I have not identified fault with the way it was made and so I cannot change it.
63. As I explained above, I have not found fault with the way the assessment in March 2021 was carried out and note the Council did provide some support for D when Mrs B raised concerns about her ability to access groups alone. The Council also increased this support to recognise the impact on the family of C’s support package not being in place.

delayed in carrying out and implementing a carer’s assessment

64. The Council carried out carer assessments in April 2019 and August 2021. The most recent assessment was detailed and considered, and I have not found fault with it.
65. But I recognise there was a gap of over two years when no carer assessment was done. This was too long and caused Mrs B uncertainty as to whether she could have accessed more support. I have also not seen evidence that the Council went back to Mrs B regarding her request for private counselling in April 2019. This was fault but I consider the main reason behind Mr and Mrs B’s difficulties was the lack of respite due to the failure to provide the weekly support hours for C, which I have dealt with above.

Back to top

Agreed action

66. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs B and C by the failure to provide the support hours over a prolonged period, I recommended that the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• pays Mrs B £900 (calculated on the basis of approximately 18 months of missed provision taking into account holidays, Mrs B’s views and COVID19, @£50 a month); and
• pays her £100 for the complaint delay agreed as part of her previous complaint to us (ref 22003365) and apologises for the delay in paying this.
67. Within three months, I recommended that the Council reviews its commissioning service for social care support to children with SEN to see if any action can be taken to improve the availability of support workers.
68. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It apologised for the oversight in respect of the £100 from the previous complaint and has taken steps to pay this. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

69. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mrs B and C and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman