Summary: the Council failed to make arrangements for Mr F’s son B’s Occupational Therapy in September 2021. However, the Council has apologised and refunded Mr F for the therapy he arranged instead. This is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council failed to arrange Occupational Therapy (OT) for his son, B.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr F; and
• information provided by the Council.
5. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr F’s son, B, has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan maintained by the Council. The Plan sets out the Occupational Therapy (OT) B requires. The Council outsourced provision of B’s OT in late 2020.
7. In July 2021, the provider sent costings to the Council for provision the following school year, starting in September. Despite enquiries by B’s mother, Mr F complains the Council did not respond to the provider. Mr F says B would have missed provision for the entire autumn term if the family had not arranged the provision itself. He asked the Council to reimburse the cost of provision the family had arranged and pay compensation.
8. The Council accepted it was responsible and apologised. The Council explained the officer dealing with the contract was absent from work due to illness. The Council made arrangements with the provider for B’s OT and agreed to reimburse Mr F.
9. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr F complained to the Ombudsman. He said he had not received the payment promised by the Council. Mr F experienced similar problems with provision for another of his children. We considered that complaint separately.
10. The complaint was allocated to me for investigation. I checked with the Council and confirmed the payment had been made. The Council paid the full cost of the provision in B’s EHC Plan.

Consideration

11. B is fortunate his parents were able to make alternative arrangements for his OT when the Council failed to make suitable arrangements for September 2021.
12. The Council apologised, made suitable arrangements and refunded the cost of the OT Mr F arranged. I consider this a suitable remedy.
13. In Mr F’s other complaint about missed provision, we considered whether the Council should make an additional payment for his time and trouble. We concluded it should not. While I appreciate Mr F’s frustration at the fact he has had to complain again, I do not consider it appropriate to recommend a further remedy in the circumstances and in light of the Council’s response to his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault when it failed to make suitable arrangements for B’s occupational therapy, but it has provided an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman