Wiltshire Council (19 006 830)

Category : Education > Special educational needs

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 06 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council delayed making a decision on funding boarding costs for their son when Mr B was stationed overseas and did not provide them with information or access to reports considered by the funding panel. Delay by the Council during part of the period caused distress for Mr and Mrs B and their son as it was almost time for the start of the new college year before the Council agreed to fund boarding temporarily. An apology, payment to Mr and Mrs B and their son and agreement to continue to fund boarding while Mr and Mrs B’s son is at college until a supported living placement is found is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs B, complained the Council:
    • delayed making a decision on providing funding for their son to board at college when an army placement took them out of the country; and
    • failed to keep them involved in the process or give them access to reports which prevented them making representations on behalf of their son.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a Council’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

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and Mr and Mrs B's comments;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
    • gave Mr and Mrs B and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
  2. 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

Background

  1. Mr and Mrs B are an army family and from 2015 were living in the UK. Their son is 19 and has an education, health and care plan. Their son lived with them and attended college as a day pupil from September 2018. The Council arranged that placement for one year with the plan to review whether the placement needed to continue once he turned 19.
  2. Mrs B contacted the Council on 19 January 2019. Mrs B asked the Council to fund 38 week residential boarding for her son at college from September 2019 as a step on his route to independence. In that email Mrs B told the Council she was moving overseas in the summer to join Mr B who had been posted overseas with the army. Mrs B explained post 16 or special education provision was not available overseas for her son, who did not want to move from the college. The Council suggested Mr and Mrs B contact the Ministry of Defence as it normally funded residential placements. As a follow-up the Council contacted the Children’s Education Advisory Service, which is part of the Ministry of Defence, to see whether it would fund the boarding costs for Mr and Mrs B’s son. However, Mrs B contacted the Council on 22 January to advise that as her son is over 18 the Ministry of Defence would not fund him.
  3. On 29 January the Council received a request from Mr and Mrs B for an assessment of eligibility for supported living for their son. They asked the Council to treat the request as urgent given the family would be living out of the country after July 2019.
  4. A social worker visited Mrs B and her son on 22 February to begin an assessment.
  5. On 6 March the Council contacted the Army Families Federation about potential funding from the army. The Council also contacted the college for information about fees.
  6. On 3 May Mr and Mrs B asked the Council for confirmation of its position on funding for boarding costs to help the army decision on that.
  7. On 14 May the Council asked the college for a breakdown of care costs and supported living fees.
  8. On 15 May the annual review at college took place.
  9. On 4 June the college provided a new, reduced fee structure to the Council. On the same day the Ministry of Defence confirmed it would not fund the boarding fees.
  10. On 18 June the special educational needs panel considered the request for Mr and Mrs B’s son to attend another year at college. The panel later agreed that request.
  11. On 4 July Mrs B chased what was happening as she was leaving the country on 17 July. Mrs B was concerned as although her son would be going with her he would return in September and needed somewhere to live.
  12. Mrs B chased the Council on 15 July.
  13. On 17 July the Head of Service decided the Council needed to find more cost-effective options than boarding at the college. The Council later approved an indicative weekly budget of up to £2,000 for a supported living placement.
  14. The Council completed the support plan on 24 July which recommended supported living for Mr and Mrs B’s son.
  15. On 29 July Mr and Mrs B told the Council they had negotiated a weekly boarding fee with the college and asked whether the Council would fund it.
  16. Mrs B returned to the UK with her son on 2 September and asked the Council for an urgent update. On the following day Mrs B made clear the uncertainty was having an impact on her son’s mental well-being. The Council told Mr and Mrs B it was seeking details of supported living costs.
  17. The Council visited Mrs B and her son on 5 September.
  18. On 9 September the Council secured details of the likely costs for a supported living placement and began contacting potential providers. As the Council could not identify a suitable provider it agreed on 11 September to provide funding for boarding for one term. The Council told Mr and Mrs B it would seek a supported living placement to start in January 2020.
  19. Council officers met with Mrs B and her son on 29 October. At the meeting an aunt agreed to escort Mr and Mrs B’s son to visits to any potential supported living placements.
  20. The current position is the Council has not identified an alternative supported living placement. The Council continues to look for a suitable placement and has agreed to fund boarding for Mr and Mrs B’s son for the remaining two terms at college.

Analysis

  1. Mr and Mrs B say the Council knew about their move overseas following an army posting in October 2018 and had from then to plan for provision for their son who could not live independently. I have seen no evidence the Council knew of any requirement for accommodation for Mr and Mrs B’s son until they made contact with the Council in January 2019. In any event, the evidence I have seen satisfies me whether the Council knew of Mr and Mrs B’s placement overseas in October 2018 or January 2019 the decision about whether to fund boarding at the college could not have been reached at that point. That is because the Council had only agreed a college placement for Mr and Mrs B’s son for one year, which would complete in July 2019. The documentary evidence is clear it was intended for the review which took place in May 2019 to decide whether further provision at the college beyond July 2019 was suitable. I therefore do not consider the Council could have made a decision about whether to fund boarding at the college from September 2019 until after the review took place in May 2019.
  2. That did not, though, prevent the Council carrying out an adult social care assessment to establish Mr and Mrs B’s son’s needs. The Council needed to do that in this case because until that point Mr and Mrs B’s son did not receive social care input because he lived at home with his family. I am satisfied the Council acted properly by beginning the assessment in February 2019. As I said in the previous paragraph though, even after that assessment the Council could not have agreed funding for boarding at the college until after the review in May 2019. I therefore do not criticise the Council for any delays in relation to the request for funding for boarding before May 2019.
  3. The evidence I have seen satisfies me once the Council agreed a further year for Mr and Mrs B’s son at college it referred the matter to panel to consider the request for boarding promptly. I say that because I note the case went to the next available panel in June 2019. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council for how it dealt with the boarding issue before June 2019.
  4. I am concerned about what happened after that though. The Council knew Mrs B was moving abroad in July 2019 as part of an army placement for Mr B. The Council also knew Mr and Mrs B’s son could not go with them and therefore needed accommodation in the UK as he could not live independently. In those circumstances I am concerned the Council did not make a decision about funding boarding for Mr and Mrs B’s son until 19 July 2019, after the family had already left the UK. I understand the Council tried to find a supported living placement following that decision, although I do not have any documentary evidence showing attempts to do that until September 2019. I am concerned though that although the Council had details of the boarding cost for the college on 29 July there does not appear to have been any attempt to find out the comparable cost of supported living until 9 September 2019. It seems to me likely the Council only followed that up in September 2019 because Mr and Mrs B chased the Council. Delay securing that information is fault. I am satisfied that delay also delayed the overall decision to temporarily fund boarding at the college until identification of a suitable supported living placement.
  5. Given the closeness of the start of the new college year and the fact Mr and Mrs B’s son was a vulnerable adult who could not live independently and had nowhere to live from September 2019 I am concerned the Council did not consider temporarily funding boarding at college earlier when it could not find an alternative placement. The documentary evidence I have seen suggests the Council only considered that as a last resort and only after Mr and Mrs B contacted it to chase. Failure to consider alternative options given the Council had not identified a supported living placement is fault. That caused Mr and Mrs B significant distress, led to them having to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint and caused distress to their son.
  6. Mr and Mrs B are also concerned about not receiving information or access to reports considered by the funding panel. Mr and Mrs B are concerned this meant they could not make representations for their son. I understand Mr and Mrs B’s concerns. However, the funding panel process does not include representations by the family of service users. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for not involving Mr and Mrs B more. I note though sometimes the Council only provided updates to Mr and Mrs B when they chased. That again is fault.
  7. I welcome the Council’s decision to fund boarding costs until the end of the academic year given it has not identified a supported living placement for Mr and Mrs B’s son. However, I do not consider it would be appropriate for the Council to make decisions about extending the temporary boarding on a term by term basis once that year has completed. That is, should Mr and Mrs B’s son remain at college and no further supported living placement be found. I therefore recommended the Council agree to continue to fund boarding at the college, as long as Mr and Mrs B’s son remains there, until a supported living placement is found. That will provide some certainty for Mr and Mrs B’s son, who is autistic. I also recommended the Council pay Mr and Mrs B £250 to reflect the time and trouble they had to go to pursuing the complaint and the impact the stress of not having anywhere for their son to live had on them between June 2019 and September 2019. In addition, I recommended the Council pay an additional £250 to be used for the benefit of Mr and Mrs B’s son to reflect the impact the uncertainty about his living arrangements had on him between June and September 2019. I further recommended the Council apologise to Mr and Mrs B and their son. The Council has agreed to those recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
    • apologise to Mr and Mrs B and their son;
    • pay Mr and Mrs B £250;
    • pay Mr and Mrs B an additional £250 to be used for the benefit of their son; and
    • confirm in writing to Mr and Mrs B that the Council will continue to fund the boarding costs for their son’s college, for as long as he remains at college, until the Council is able to identify an appropriate supported living placement.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings