Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint about its assessment of her children’s needs under the statutory procedure. The Council has now agreed to investigate her complaint under that procedure, providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council failed to properly assess and support her disabled children, ignored its legal duties, dismissed clear evidence of need, did not complete the promised reassessments or her Carer’s Assessment, and later withdrew an earlier offer of respite and Direct Payments.
2. She wants her children recognised as Children in Need, a full Carer’s Assessment, appropriate support, an apology, financial remedy, and service improvements.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X requested a Child and Family Needs Assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She says the Councils assessment was inadequate and ignored both her child’s complex needs and her own carer needs. She disputes the Council’s decision to close the case and signpost her to Tier 2 services.
7. If we investigated this complaint, we would be likely to find fault with the Council. This is because Ms X’s complaint concerns the assessment of disabled children under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and related duties towards parent carers. Complaints about children’s social care services of this nature should normally be considered under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure set out in (Children’s Social Care: Getting the Best from Complaints).
8. The Council considered the complaint under its corporate complaints process and decided it was not upheld and closed. This was not appropriate. By doing so, the Council denied Ms X access to the statutory process, which includes independent investigation and oversight. That is likely to amount to fault causing injustice because Ms X has been prevented from having her concerns independently reviewed.
9. We therefore asked the Council to reconsider the complaint under the correct statutory procedure.

Back to top

Agreed action

10. To its credit the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by considering Ms X’s complaint under the statutory procedure.
11. Within one month of this final decision, the Council should have obtained Ms X’s statement of complaint and be seeking to provide its substantive response to her within the timescales set out in the statutory complaint procedure for children social care (Children’s social care: getting the best from complaints).
12. The Council should provide us with evidence that the above recommendation has been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman