Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide any support for her wellbeing when it carried out a parent carer needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider Mrs X’s circumstances and fettered its discretion when refusing to provide financial support to meet Mrs X’s eligible outcomes. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and considering again what support it can offer Mrs X to meet her eligible outcomes as a result of caring for two of her children.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council:

• Has an unlawful blanket policy not to fund parent carers eligible outcomes which have been identified by a parent carer assessment.
• Failed to provide any support to help her work more hours and support her wellbeing.
• Refused to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.

2. Mrs X considers that as a result she has not received sufficient support with her caring role and cannot access work or education which has significantly affected her wellbeing.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
9. 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

What I found

Law and guidance

10. A parent who is caring for a disabled child has the right to ask a council for a parent carer needs assessment of their own need for support. The assessment must consider a number of factors including:

• whether the parent carer of a disabled child needs support and, if so, what that support might be.
• the parent carer’s wellbeing. This includes considering the impact on the parent carer’s social and economic wellbeing and ability to work.

11. Following the assessment, the council must decide whether the parent carer has support needs and how the council is going to meet those needs (section 17ZD of the Children Act 1989)

What happened

12. Mrs X has three children who have disabilities. She provides care for her daughter, A, who is over the age of 18. She also cares for her two younger children, B and C who at the time of the complaint were aged under 18. Mrs X requested a carer’s assessment.
13. The Council carried out a carer’s needs assessment which considered Mrs X’s support needs arising from caring for A and from being a parent carer for B and C. The assessment noted the impact on Mrs X’s wellbeing of caring for A, B and C. It also noted Mrs X said she would like to work more hours as it would be beneficial for her mental health. The officer assessing Mrs X considered she had eligible outcomes in a number of areas including caring responsibilities for a child and accessing and engaging work, education or volunteering. The assessing officer signposted Mrs X to local voluntary organisations for support with caring for B and C. The Council’s Adult Social Care service provided a one-off direct payment to Mrs X to support her caring role for A.
14. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council as she considered it had failed to provide sufficient support following her parent carer needs assessment. Mrs X also complained that an officer told her that there were no funding streams to meet needs identified by a parent carer needs assessment.
15. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of its two stage complaints procedure. The Council said its policy stipulates there was no funding attached to a parent carer needs assessment being completed. It noted the assessing officer had signposted Mrs X to support organisations. The Council said it was not responsible for providing support with accessing education or work.
16. Mrs X requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The Council declined to consider Mrs X’s complaint at stage two as officers considered there was nothing further to add.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council said:

• Its policy says there is no funding attached to a parent carer needs assessment being completed.
• It addresses the support needs of the parents and explores their wellbeing. Depending on what is needed, it will explore avenues with parents and carers to help them progress towards their goal. This would include signposting to other agencies who specialise in certain areas of support. The Council will also look to draw upon the naturally connected networks of the family.

18. Mrs X considers the organisations signposted by the Council cannot support her wellbeing outcomes and allow her to work more hours.

Analysis

19. I acknowledge the Council provided a one-off direct payment to support Mrs X’s caring role for A. But there was fault in how the Council considered what support it could offer Mrs X to meet her needs arising from her caring role for B and C.
20. The Council’s policy is not to provide funding to meet eligible outcomes identified by a parent carer needs assessment. The Council is fettering its discretion if it will never provide funding to meet a parent carer’s eligible outcomes. This is fault. The Council should consider each case on its merits and there may be occasions where a parent carer’s needs can only be met by funding. As a result of its blanket approach, the Council did not properly consider Mrs X’s circumstances when deciding what support it could offer to meet her eligible outcomes arising from her caring role for B and C. This was fault.
21. The Council is not a work or education provider but it must have regard to the wellbeing of the parent. The law is clear that this includes the impact of the caring role on the parent carer’s social and economic wellbeing, including their ability to work. The carers assessment notes Mrs X wanted to increase her work hours as it was beneficial to her wellbeing. The Council provided Mrs X with details of organisations. But there is no evidence in the assessment or support plan to show why the Council considered the organisations could support Mrs X to increase her work hours. The Council also wrongly told Mrs X it could not provide support with accessing work or education. So, on balance, the Council did not properly consider how it could meet Mrs X’s outcome of wanting to increase her work hours to support her wellbeing. This was fault.
22. I cannot know, on balance, what the outcome would have been if the Council had properly considered Mrs X’s circumstances and what support it could offer when considering how to meet her eligible outcomes arising from her caring role for B and C. But the fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X as she cannot know if the Council would have offered funding if the fault had not occurred.
23. The Council’s blanket approach potentially causes injustice to other parent carers. I therefore make a recommendation below.
24. The Council declined to investigate Mrs X’s complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure as it did not consider it could add anything. That is a matter for the Council’s judgement and does not amount to fault. But the decision not to escalate to stage two meant the Council missed the opportunity for an investigation by officers independent of the service area and to fully consider if there was any fault in its approach.

Back to top

Action

25. The Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Mrs X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults outlined above. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Consider again what support the Council can offer Mrs X to meet her eligible outcomes arising from her caring role for B and C. The Council should fully explain to Mrs X how the support offered will meet her eligible outcomes. If the Council considers Mrs X’s eligible outcomes should be met by a personal budget then it should backdate the budget to the date when the carers assessment was carried out.
3. Review its approach or policy to providing support to meet the eligible outcomes of parent carers to ensure officers consider individual circumstances when deciding what support can be offered. This is to ensure the Council does not fetter its discretion when considering what support should be offered to meet eligible outcomes.
26. The Council should take the action at a) and b) within one month and the action at c) within three months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I have completed my investigation and find fault causing injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy Mrs X’s injustice as recommended.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman