Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council’s counselling service for young people handled a referral it received for her son, Y. We find the Council failed to respond to Mrs X’s emails and did not provide clear information about its counselling services. That has caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and unduly raised her expectations. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £200 for the injustice caused. It will also make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council’s counselling service for young people, Safe Space handled a referral it received for her son, Y. She said it failed to provide Y with counselling and then withdrew a later offer of art therapy. She said that Safe Space had incorrectly stated she had declined support services. In addition, she said Safe Space’s communication with her was poor.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise and financially reimburse them for the counselling she has had to arrange privately. She also wants compensation for the stress the failure to provide services has caused the family.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. I have exercised my discretion to investigate back to 2018 because Mrs X said she did not become aware that Y could have accessed counselling services until January 2020.
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
8. 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

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr and Mrs X.
10. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
11. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Counselling support for young people in the Council’s area

12. Where a child or young person needs support with their mental health, their GP or other professional can refer them to the Single Point of Access (the SPA). The SPA screens the referral and decides what level of support is needed. The SPA is a function of the NHS Trust, and therefore outside of our jurisdiction.
13. Where the young person does not meet the threshold for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), the SPA may pass the referral onto Safe Space. This is an in-school counselling and mentoring service provided by the Council. Where a young person is not attending school, Safe Space can arrange to see them at a different location.
14. Safe Space (from now on referred to as the Service) is funded through CAMHS. It provides up to ten sessions of either counselling or art therapy. It is a term-time only service.
15. The Service’s policy states that sessions must start in the financial year that it receives the referral. The financial year runs until the end of March.

What happened

The initial referral- October 2018

16. In October 2018, Y’s GP referred him into the SPA for counselling. Y was experiencing anxiety and was school refusing. The SPA decided he did not meet the threshold for CAMHS involvement and passed the referral to the Service. The SPA wrote to Mrs X on 11 October to confirm this.
17. Mrs X contacted the Service the following week. At that time, the Service had not received the referral for Y. The Service’s case records note Y was a school refuser and that Mrs X had arranged private counselling as he needed urgent support. The Service said it would contact Mrs X when it received Y’s referral from the SPA. Following that conversation, the Service emailed Mrs X information about the Council’s ‘education support for medical absence’ (ESMA) team.
18. The Service received the referral from the SPA on 24 October 2018. In response to enquiries, the Service said it spoke to Mrs X and offered ten sessions of either counselling or art therapy. However, Mrs X felt the Service could not offer anything above what was already being accessed by the family privately. It said the Service agreed to hold the referral whilst Mrs X considered the support available. In contrast, Mrs X said the Service told her it could not offer Y counselling as he was not attending school.
19. The Service’s case records do not specify the content of the conversation, and simply refer to Y’s case being “on hold for now pending mum calling back”.

Mrs X’s request for support- March 2019

20. Mrs X contacted the Service five months later at the start of March 2019 asking about additional support that CAMHS or the Service could offer alongside Y’s counselling. The case records show the Service contacted the ESMA team to discuss what was in place for Y.
21. Mrs X sent the Service several emails between March and May following up the request for support. She confirmed she would like to explore the option of art therapy and asked for additional information. The Service did not respond until the start of May 2019. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it had been waiting for confirmation that it could carry the funding from the initial referral for Y, into the next financial year. It confirmed the Service could offer ten sessions of art therapy.
22. Mrs X asked the Service to provide further information about art therapy. The Service responded mid- May; it said it had placed Y back on its list for therapy. It provided a response to Mrs X’s questions about art therapy.
23. At the end of May, Mrs X emailed the Service asking it to confirm the day and time of the sessions if “we decide to go ahead”. The Service did not respond to that email. Its case records for the start of June record the case as pending and waiting for a parental decision. Later that month its records note to “chase up parents if not close and reallocate”. In response to enquiries the Council said the Service spoke to Mrs X who had not decided whether she wished to continue with art therapy. That contact is not recorded. Mrs X said that conversation did not take place.
24. Mrs X emailed the Service in July to say there had been a change in Y’s circumstances. She emailed further in September about Y starting the art therapy. At this time, the Service spoke to Mrs X. It said it needed to speak to Y’s private counsellor before starting art therapy to consider whether it was suitable to run the two therapies alongside one another. There was a delay in the Service contacting the therapist; the Council said that was due in part to the therapist being on holiday. It took until the end of September before it made contact. The private therapist agreed that art therapy would be beneficial for Y.
25. The Service contacted Y’s school at the beginning of October about it delivering the therapy in school. The school did not respond until later in the month. It agreed the Service would deliver art therapy in school starting from 4 November 2019.
26. As Y had just returned to school for three hours a day, Mrs X spoke to Y’s school and decided to defer him starting art therapy.
27. Y’s school contacted the Service at the start of January 2020 about setting up the art therapy sessions. The Service stated it had checked with the SPA and that it would need a new referral. It agreed to contact Mrs X with that information.
28. The Service also asked its clinical lead at CAMHS whether it needed a new referral because it had been 18 months since Y was initially referred into the Service. The clinical lead agreed that was the correct course of action.
29. The Service sent Mrs X an email. In that it said it would need another referral for Y. It also said it had arranged services for Y throughout the year, but Mrs X had said that Y had not been ready.
30. Following that email, Mrs X complained. She said that Y had not accessed counselling in October 2018 because he was not in school. She said the only time the Service had arranged a service was in November 2019. She said the Service’s claims were “inaccurate and misleading” and asked it to retract its statement. She said the Service had not told them the art therapy would be withdrawn, and they had been waiting for Y to return to school and be ready to access the service.

The Council’s response to the complaint

31. The manager from the Service provided the stage one response to the complaint alongside further comments when Mr and Mrs X were dissatisfied with the response. They said:
• Mrs X had initially declined service from the Service in October 2018 because Y was not ready for intervention and was receiving private counselling.
• The Service had allocated a therapist to Y in May 2019 and November 2019. They acknowledged they had not told Mr and Mrs X that it had allocated the work and accepted that it had not been clear work had been set up. They apologised for not being clear in their communication.
• The offer of art therapy was not withdrawn, as there was not a programme in place. They apologised for not telling Mr and Mrs X in writing that a further referral might be needed.
• Reassessment of Y remained necessary because of the time since the initial referral and because a different type of intervention might be more effective.
32. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked it to be considered at stage two. Within its stage two response the Council apologised for delays in the Service responding to Mrs X’s emails. It asked the Service to:
• Review how long it held referral offers open for, and if that exceeded a certain period, close it. It asked the Service to reflect this change in revised operating procedures and communicated to parents and carers.
33. It said the Service had tried to accommodate Mrs X’s requests for support and had worked flexibly with Y’s school and CAMHS. It said the Service had extended funding from one year to the next to keep Y’s case open which led to a “seemingly open-ended arrangement” resulting in the Service being unable to meet Mrs X’s expectations.
34. Mr and Mrs X subsequently made a Subject Access Request to the Council on 10 July 2020. They made further complaints in October 2020 that not all their emails were on the Council’s records; that the Council had deleted Y’s initial referral to the SPA; and that the Council refused to share all Y’s data. Mr and Mrs X have taken their complaints about data protection and the Council’s handling of their personal information to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
35. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in January 2021.

The Council’s response to our investigation

36. The Council confirmed that since Mrs X’s complaint it had:
1. Written to the SPA and asked it to make clear to parents:
• the number of sessions offered by the Service; and
• If the young person is a school refuser, it is not guaranteed the Service can offer an intervention.
1. Agreed that the Service would confirm with parents when sessions would begin via telephone and follow that up with an email or letter clarifying the offer.
2. Increased the management capacity and structure of the Service to free up time to deal with a significant increase in calls and referrals.
37. It said the Service would make three attempts to contact parents and carers where there was any uncertainty as to whether a service was wanted. It confirmed that it would write to parents and carers and explain it would close referrals within a three-week period if they did not confirm if they wanted the support and that a new referral would be needed to access the Service.
38. The Council said the Service was happy to offer Y ten sessions of art therapy if it received a further referral.

My findings

The initial referral- October 2018

39. Mrs X said the Service told her it could not provide counselling to Y because he was not in school as it was school based counselling. In contrast, the Service said Mrs X declined counselling because the Service could only offer ten sessions and Mrs X felt it would only replicate the counselling she had arranged privately.
40. As I was not there, I cannot say what was discussed and there is insufficient evidence for me to make a finding, even on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, I cannot make a finding on Mrs X’s complaint that the Service failed to offer Y counselling following referral. However, even if the Service did say it could not provide counselling as Y was not in school, it has confirmed it was an in-school counselling service therefore it is unlikely we would find fault.
41. However, we would expect the Service’s case notes to record the Service’s actions, and any significant decision making following Y’s referral. The case notes state “spoke to mum and parent may come back at a later date”. They do not say why Mrs X asked for Y’s referral to be put on hold. The lack of case recording was fault. However, I do not consider that caused Mrs X a significant injustice. Even if the Service had kept contemporaneous records of its discussion with Mrs X, that would not mean Mrs X would agree with what it had written.
42. Following that referral, the Service kept Y’s case as pending, despite not having further contact with Mrs X for five months. The Service should have given Mrs X a timeframe to consider the support available; it should have told her that Y’s funding would only remain available until March 2019, and it should have closed Y’s referral if she did not wish to proceed. Failure to do that was fault. I agree with the Council’s stage two findings that the Service’s lack of clarity and open-ended approach to working with Y has raised Mrs X’s expectations about the service on offer.
43. The Council has confirmed how long the Service will keep referrals open for when the parents or carers are undecided about progressing with the support. However, the Service has not yet incorporated this within its revised procedures.

Arranging art therapy

44. The case records indicate there were delays in the Service responding to Mrs X’s emails between March 2019 and May 2019. That was fault. That caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and put her to the time and trouble of having to contact the Service further. In response to enquiries, the Council confirmed delays in communication were linked to a high volume of workload, sickness and absence within the team. The Council has increased staffing in the Service to respond to the increase in referrals. It has also apologised to Mrs X for the poor communication in its stage two response. That goes some way to remedy the injustice caused.
45. The Service failed to respond to Mrs X’s email at the end of May asking when and where the therapy would take place if “we decide to go ahead”. That was fault. In response to enquiries, the Council said the Service spoke to Mrs X in June and she was unclear whether she wanted to proceed with art therapy. Mrs X states that conversation did not take place. There is no record of that conversation on the Service’s case recording systems. That was also fault.
46. The lack of recording means it is not clear whether the art therapy did not start in June because Mrs X did not want it to, or because the Service failed to follow up the referral. However, even if the Service did not contact Mrs X, based on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that Mrs X did not want the art therapy to start straight away. That is because between June to August 2019 Mrs X sent the Service a single email in July, to update it on a change to Y’s circumstances. If Mrs X had wanted Y to access art therapy during that period, I would have expected to have seen evidence of that through emails chasing the Service for a start date.
47. Mrs X contacted the Service at the start of September. Following that it took approximately eight weeks for the Service to arrange the art therapy because the Service needed to confirm the therapy could run alongside Y’s existing counselling; and if it could take place in Y’s school. My view is the Service should have explained the need to speak to Y’s therapist sooner whilst Mrs X was considering whether to proceed with the therapy. Failure to do that was fault. The delays in arranging the start date caused Mrs X additional frustration, however, I do not consider that has caused Y a significant injustice. That is because after the Service agreed to start the sessions in November, Mrs X asked them to be postponed whilst Y was settling into school. Therefore, I cannot say any fault by the Council at this time delayed Y’s access to therapy.

The need for a new referral

48. Without evidence of fault in how a decision was made, the Ombudsman cannot substitute our own opinion for professional judgement. The Service told Mrs X a new referral for art therapy was needed because it was 18 months since it received the initial referral for support and Y’s needs may have changed. The Service had made that decision in conjunction with its clinical lead; it has provided reasons for that decision. The Council was not at fault.
49. However, the Council has accepted it did not communicate the need for a new referral to Mrs X. That was fault. That has caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, especially as the Service had been willing to defer Y’s access to art therapy previously. The Service has updated its procedures so if there is a delay in a service commencing, parents are told about the possible need for a re-referral.
50. Mrs X can visit Y’s GP and ask for a further referral to the Service if she feels that Y would still benefit from art therapy.

The Service’s statement that it had set-up therapeutic work for Y

51. Mrs X is upset by the Service’s statement that it had set-up therapeutic work for Y on several occasions. She said it was inaccurate and misleading. As part of its complaint response the Service explained it had allocated Y to a therapist in May 2019. It acknowledged it had not communicated this directly to Mrs X and apologised for not being clearer. The Service also confirmed it had set-up work for Y in November that Mrs X was aware of.
52. The Council has already accepted it could have communicated better to Mrs X to say that it had allocated Y a therapist. It has apologised for that. That remedies any injustice caused.

How the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint

53. The manager of the Service responded to Mrs X at stage one of her complaint. Although it is not unusual for the team concerned to complete the investigation, in these circumstances, the manager had been Mrs X’s point of contact at the Service and had been responsible for allocating Y’s referral and arranging the work. Therefore I consider the decision for them to investigate the complaint was fault. We would expect an officer not involved in the case to have completed the initial investigation, in order to reassure the complainant, the investigation was objective.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 for the avoidable frustration caused by delays/failure to respond to her emails, and the additional time and trouble she went to in following those up.
• Apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 for avoidable frustration caused by not providing clear information about what the Service would/could offer and unduly raising her expectations.
• Remind staff of the need to record discussions they have with parents and any outcomes from those discussions within the young person’s case records. Where a decision about deferring or starting support is made the Service should send an email/text to confirm what was discussed.
• Update the Services revised procedures to reflect how long the Service will keep a referral pending for.

Back to top

Final decision

55. We find the Council was at fault for delays in responding to Mrs X’s emails, not keeping case records of its contact with her and not providing clear information about its counselling services. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for service improvements and to pay Mrs X £200 to remedy the personal injustice cased. Therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman