Summary: Mrs M complains about further delay by the Council arranging overnight respite away from home for her children. We previously considered Mrs M’s complaint in July 2024 when the Council said it hoped to arrange respite by September 2024. Overnight respite began in April 2025. We have recommended a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains about further delay by the Council arranging overnight respite away from home for her children. We previously considered Mrs M’s complaint in July 2024 when the Council said it hoped to arrange respite by September 2024.

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. Once 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

4. I have considered information provided by Mrs M and the Council. I have invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs M has three children. In August 2022, the Council undertook child in need assessments and decided Mrs M’s youngest children needed one night of overnight respite care per week away from home to provide Mrs M and her husband a break from caring and time to spend with their oldest child.
6. At the time of the assessment, the children were too young for the Council’s overnight respite facility. Once they were old enough, there was a long waiting list as the centre is heavily oversubscribed.
7. The Council offered alternative provision, including daytime activities on a Saturday and direct payments for carers to come to Mrs M’s home, but was unable to provide the overnight care away from home it decided the family needed.

Mrs M’s previous complaint

8. Mrs M complained to the Council in March 2023.
9. The Council apologised for the delay arranging respite for the children and explained what it was doing to increase capacity at its respite centre. The Council noted that introductions had begun to familiarise the children with the respite centre in February 2024 and said progress towards overnight stays would be ‘child-led’.
10. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs M complained to us. She said the Council had cancelled the introductory visits at the end of March due to a shortage of staff and said they were unlikely to resume before August or September 2024. Mrs M wanted the Council to arrange respite and pay compensation for the impact of the lack of respite on her family.
11. We upheld Mrs M’s complaint and recommended a symbolic payment for the injustice caused by the delay arranging overnight respite away from home.
12. Almost 100 weeks had passed since the Council decided the family needed respite at the time of our first investigation. The Council should have provided 200 nights of respite care for the children.
13. The delay had a significant impact on Mrs M and her family. The children have poor sleep patterns and need constant supervision to ensure their safety. Overnight respite is intended to give Mrs M and her husband an opportunity to rest and recuperate, as well as to spend time with their oldest child.
14. The Council accepted our recommendation and made the symbolic payment.
15. We said that if the Council was unable to re-start introductions to the respite centre by September 2024, it should consider offering a further symbolic remedy payment for the additional injustice this will cause. Should Mrs M complain to us again, we would be likely to consider the injustice to increase the longer the family is without respite.

Mrs M’s latest complaint

16. Mrs M complained to us again towards the end of 2024. At the time, the Council had still not arranged overnight respite away from home. Mrs M said the strain was intolerable.
17. We accepted Mrs M’s complaint straight away since it related to the remedy we recommended following a previous investigation.
18. We contacted the Council to ask for an update. The Council said that introductions at the respite centre were going well and the Council hoped it would soon be possible to progress to overnight stays.
19. I understand overnight stays for the children started in mid April 2025. This was seven and a half months after the Council hoped to re-start introductions.
20. Following a crisis in July 2024, I understand Mrs M reluctantly accepted direct payments from the Council to arrange overnight respite in her home from October 2024.

Consideration

21. There appears to have been further delay arranging overnight respite for the children at the Council’s respite centre following our last investigation. This delay is fault: the Council was unable to fulfil the undertaking it gave to re-start introductions by September 2024.
22. Where we find fault, we consider the impact on the complainant. We refer to this as the injustice. We may recommend a remedy for injustice that is the result of fault by the Council.
23. The Council has offered direct payments since it first decided the children needed respite in 2022, but I understand the Council’s intention was always to provide respite outside the family home. Direct payments for respite in the home do not provide the same level of respite for Mrs M and her husband as overnight stays outside the home and are contingent upon Mrs M finding suitable carers.
24. I understand the Council offered, and Mrs M accepted, direct payments in October 2024 when Mrs M identified carers to provide respite in her home. This has mitigated some, but not all, of the injustice caused by the additional delay arranging overnight respite away from home.
25. I will recommend a remedy for the injustice caused by the Council’s failure to re-start introductions to the respite centre by September 2024 and the delay arranging overnight respite away from the home. My recommendations are at the end of this statement.
26. I understand the arrangements for respite in the home are currently working well and Mrs M has decided to prioritise respite in the home over the Council’s respite centre for the time being because of the additional flexibility it offers. I recognise this is a ‘trade off’ and Mrs M has accepted greater flexibility at the expense of the ‘gold standard’ of respite outside the home which the Council originally intended to provide.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible, as in the case of Mrs M and her family, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment.
28. There is, however, no formula I can use to calculate the impact of the delay.
29. Within four weeks of my final decision, I recommended the Council apologises to Mrs M and offers a final symbolic payment of £1,000 to acknowledge the impact of the delays. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
30. In making this recommendation, I acknowledge the Council has now arranged overnight respite at its respite centre and a line can be drawn under the past.
31. The Council accepted my recommendation.
32. I appreciate the final details of the children’s respite are still to be agreed and recognise that any arrangements which rely on direct payments will depend on the ability of parents to find suitable carers. I hope that Mrs M and the Council can work together to reach an agreement that meets the children’s needs.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have ended my investigation as the Council accepted my recommendation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman