• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Agreed action
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained about the delay in receiving remedies the Council agreed to pay to her and her son, S, in August 2021. The Council was at fault. It did not realise it had not completed the actions it committed to in August 2021 until Mrs X made her complaint. It also did not have a personal budget procedure in place which delayed the payments. This caused Mrs X and S injustice and at the end of this decision statement we recommend what actions the Council should take to put things right.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to:
   • pay a remedy for her son, S’s, missed education it agreed to in 2021;
   • pay £300 for her time and trouble it agreed to in 2021; and
   • include Mrs X in deciding how it would pay the remedy to S despite her having parental rights.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s decision that it would not pay the remedy to her directly meant that S has still not benefited from any added educational activities. This has further impacted his education and wellbeing. Additionally, she had to chase the Council for the remedies it had offered her and spend time submitting a separate complaint about this.
3. Mrs X would like the Council to:
   • apologise for its failure to include her in deciding how the remedy would be used for S’s benefit;
   • pay the £1915 to her directly so she, as the person delivering S’s educational package, can use it for the benefit of his education in discussion with S; and
   • pay her a remedy for the time she spent in having to complain about the Council’s failure to adhere to the remedy it committed to in 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered the information Mrs X sent me, and I spoke to her about her complaint.
7. I considered the Council response to my enquiries.
8. Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. In 2021 Mrs X complained to the Council about the lack of education for her son, S, who was 13. He was also a looked after child who was living away from home.
10. In August 2021 the Council upheld her complaint and agreed to pay £1800 for the education S missed since March 2021.
11. In the complaint response the Council said the remedy would be “used to support further learning activities. (…) will be paid to S’s provider as they are responsible for providing his education and in a strong position to work with S in catch up areas…..it was intended to be used by the end of the Autumn term 21.”
12. In June 2023 Mrs X chased the Council after S moved back in with her. She said she thought S did not get any extra provision since the Council’s agreement. The Council did not provide her with a clear response to her questions.
13. In July 2023 Mrs X complained to the Council and said it had failed to complete the remedy it committed to in August 2021.
14. At the end of August 2023 the Council responded to her complaint and disagreed with her interpretation. The Council said that it did not pay the remedy in 2021 because S was “not in the right frame of mind” to see the benefit of additional tuition. This was because he was dysregulated at the school he was attending, and this placement broke down in 2022.
15. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint further in mid-September 2023. She asked the Council:
    • when it decided that S was not in the right frame of mind to make it withhold the remedy;
    • to explain why it had not used the remedy in the following two years;
    • to adjust the remedy amount in line with inflation;
    • to use the remedy for learning activities as opposed to additional tuition; and
    • to pay the remedy directly to her because she and S were best placed to decide on how to use the remedy and she could liaise with the professionals in making such a decision.
16. The Council issued its further response in early October 2023. It:
    • apologised for not using the remedy in autumn term 2021 as it said it would;
    • said it could not find evidence on how it decided not to use the remedy in 2021 and who decided this, or why this was not explained to her or S;
    • said the letter from 2021 stated the remedy would be used for further learning activities;
    • confirmed the Council would pay the provider directly and not Mrs X;
    • refused to adjust the remedy amount to include inflation.
17. Within a few days Mrs X asked the Council to progress her complaint further as she was unhappy with the Council’s responses. She said this was because the Council failed to provide reasons to support its position and they could not agree how to use the remedy.
18. The Council wrote to Mrs X in early November 2023 with its final response. It:
    • agreed it did not pay the remedies that it had agreed to in August 2021;
    • agreed to increase the remedy to £1915 in line with inflation;
    • pay the remedy as part of a personal budget;
    • would create a plan with Mrs X of how the Council would use the funds for S in the 2023/2024 academic year.
19. Mrs X asked us to investigate her complaint in December 2023. She said that S was not getting a personal budget and once again he could not access the remedy the Council agreed to pay in August 2021.
20. In early February 2024 the Council told us that:
    • it had completed its approach to personal budgets a few days ago and told Mrs X about this;
    • it proposed adding S’s remedy to his personal budget; and
    • it could not find a record of the £300 distress payment it agreed to, for which it apologised and made the payment now.

Analysis

Complaint handling

21. The Council told us that when it agreed to pay the £1800 remedy to S for his missed education it had no policy or process in place to monitor if it ever completed this action. While this is not a legal requirement, we consider it is good practice to avoid such complaints as this. Because of this, we consider the Council was at fault for not realising it had not completed the action it committed to in 2021 until Mrs X made her complaint.
22. We are pleased to hear that in May 2022 the Council changed how it managed complaints and introduced a corporate complaints function. It agreed who would be responsible for ensuring that the Council completed any actions it agreed to during the complaint process.
23. Additionally, the Council told us that it was reviewing its corporate complaints policy. It hopes to make it even clearer who was the owner of the outstanding actions and timescales in which the Council should complete them. This is a welcomed service improvement.
24. Finally, the Council told us it was developing a new tracking system due to be implemented in early 2025. It hopes the new system will allow officers to easily track outstanding actions for each complaint.
25. I have decided not to make any further service improvement recommendations because I consider the Council has already identified and begun implementing the corrective action to ensure this does not happen in the future.

Remedy payment for S’s missed education

26. In its complaint response in 2021 the Council said that it would pay S’s remedy directly to his educational provider. S was on roll with a school in the Autumn term 2021, but the Council said he was “not in right frame of mind” to take advantage of additional learning activities. However, there are no contemporaneous notes showing who made such a decision and what information this was based on. This is fault.
27. The Council said that Mrs X did not complain about the way in which the Council would pay the remedy to S in 2021. Mrs S may not have been opposed to the payment method at the time, believing that S would benefit from the additional learning experiences the remedy would allow him to access. We understand that Mrs X was not aware the Council did not pay the remedy out until much later in the process. As soon as she realised that S had not received the remedy she complained about it, and it was also at this time that she questioned the method of payment the Council proposed.
28. When Mrs X complained about this, she said that because of the time that had passed she would like to receive the remedy payment to ensure S can benefit from it. At the time, the Council told her that it would pay the remedy as part of S’s personal budget. However S did not have a personal budget in place at that time.
29. In February 2024 the Council confirmed it had finalised a personal budget procedure. This suggests that it did not have one in place when it said it would pay the remedy as part of it, and Mrs X’s concerns about lack of workable process were legitimate. This meant that Mrs X and S once again could not have received the remedy in the way the Council said it was prepared to pay it. This is fault. The Council has already remedied it partially by creating a personal budget procedure. However, the delay in this caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X and S as they were not sure when they would be able to access the remedy.
30. This caused a further injustice to S, who is an already vulnerable young person. He was awarded the remedy because he had missed out on education, and this delay meant that he could not access more educational activities that he wanted to take part in.
31. Although the Council has now completed a personal budget procedure, considering what happened we do not consider this is a fitting way for it to pay S’s remedy. The personal budget process puts added requirements, such as providing receipts and the Council’s approval for S to access the educational activities that he wants to. We consider these to be unnecessary barrier for S to access a remedy that the Council awarded him because of its fault in the first place.
32. Because of this we recommend the Council pays the £1915 to Mrs X directly, so she and S can decide how to use it for his benefit.

Remedy payment for Mrs X’s time and trouble

33. Mrs X complained the Council did not pay her the £300 it awarded to her in 2021. This is fault.
34. The Council agreed that it had not paid the remedy, but it has already taken the necessary action and made a direct payment to Mrs X in February 2024.
35. This is a welcomed action by the Council. However, we note that the Council missed out on the opportunity to check if it had completed all the actions from its response to Mrs X dated August 2021. The Council has already made improvements to ensure it has a way of monitoring completion of actions it committed to during the corporate complaints process.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
    • apologise to Mrs X and S for its failure to pay his remedy quickly after it agreed to it and the distress and frustration this has caused them. The Council should refer to our guidance on making an effective apology;
    • pay the £1915 directly to Mrs X, so both S and Mrs X can decide how to best use it for S’s educational benefit; and
    • pay Mrs X £400 for the distress the delays in her and S’s remedy payment and the additional effort she had to go through in making further complaints about this.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. The Council was at fault for the delay in completing the actions it committed to in August 2021. This caused Mrs X and S avoidable frustration and meant Mrs X had to go to the avoidable effort in chasing the Council for it to take action. The Council agreed to address any outstanding injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and S.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page