Summary: an investigation found fault in the Council’s May 2022 assessment of Mr F’s son B’s needs. The Council offered a symbolic payment of £500 and agreed to backdate an increase in support from September 2022. We consider this an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about his dealings with the Council in connection with a social care assessment for his son, B. He complains B missed out on support between January and September 2022 because the Council failed to assess his needs properly. He is not happy with the Council’s response to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered information provided by Mr F and the Council. I have invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council undertook a single assessment early in 2021 and offered support. I will refer to this as “the first assessment”.
7. Unhappy with the assessment and the support offered, Mr F complained to the Council.
8. Later in 2021, the Council re-assessed B’s needs and offered more support. I will refer to this as “the second assessment”. The Council responded to Mr F’s complaint and offered a financial remedy.
9. Mr F was unhappy with the second assessment and made a further complaint in January 2022. The Council agreed to undertake a further assessment which it completed in May 2022. I will refer to this as “the third assessment”.
10. Mr F was unhappy with the third assessment and complained to the Council in June 2022.
11. The Council proposed a further assessment in September 2022 when B’s case transferred to the children with disabilities team. Mr F refused. Nevertheless, the children with disabilities team offered increased support.
12. The Council considered Mr F’s June 2022 complaint at all three stages of the children’s complaints process. The complaint review panel, the final stage of the process, upheld all Mr F’s complaints.
13. The complaint review panel found the following problems with the third assessment:
• it failed to accurately record the views of B’s GP about his needs;
• it failed to include all relevant information, specifically information from an Occupational Therapist working with B;
• it misrepresented the views of a different Occupational Therapist about B’s abilities; and
• the Council failed to check with Mr F it had accurately recorded his views.
14. The Panel also found problems with the Council’s complaint handling, including significant delays. The panel met to consider Mr F’s complaint in November 2023, seventeen months after Mr F made his complaint. This was almost a year late.
15. The Council offered a payment of £500 for delays in the complaints process and £500 for the distress caused by the faults the panel identified.
16. The Council agreed to backdate the increase in support from September 2022 to the previous assessment in May 2022.
17. The Council proposed a further re-assessment of B’s needs to be carried out as part of B’s transition to adult social care services. The Council said this would be an opportunity to re-consider disputed evidence, including an occupational therapy assessment Mr F complained had not been properly considered.
18. Unhappy with the outcome, Mr F complained to the Ombudsman. He wants the Council to pay compensation for the support B has missed and the impact on his family of meeting B’s needs without the support.

Consideration

19. Mr F and the Council disagree about the level of B’s needs. Mr F believes the Council has understated B’s needs and as a result failed to provide adequate support.
20. The independent investigation found the Council had understated B’s needs in the third assessment:
• the assessment incorrectly states B has no physical health needs.
• the assessment also records B’s strengths without mentioning the challenges he faces in some tasks. For example, while B is able to prepare a meal, the assessment does not record that he requires supervision to complete the task safely.
• the assessment does not record Mr F’s views about the challenges posed by B’s behaviour.
21. These are significant faults.
22. When a council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel, and any remedy the Council offers.
23. The faults identified in the third assessment have clearly caused Mr F considerable frustration. He has been to considerable trouble to pursue his complaint in order to correct the faults.
24. I understand the Council agreed to backdate the support provided following the transfer of B’s case to the children with disabilities team in September 2022 to the previous assessment. Mr F was concerned about his ability to use the funds in accordance with his direct payment agreement. The Council said it would agree to the use of the backdated direct payments to fund any opportunities, activities or events Mr F identified for B’s benefit.
25. The Council also offered a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the uncertainty and distress caused by the faults.
26. I consider the offer of a new assessment, the agreement to backdate the support provided following the transfer of B’s case to the children with disabilities team in September 2022 and the payment offered to be an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. It is in line with our published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in the Council’s May 2022 assessment of Mr F’s son B’s needs. The Council offered a new assessment, a symbolic payment of £500 and agreed to backdate an increase in support from September 2022. I consider this an appropriate remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman