The Investigation

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that an assessment of her son’s needs inappropriately depicted her wishes and feelings as negative attributes and the assessment process lacked engagement with her, was discriminatory and unfair. She also complained social workers made inappropriate medical judgements that they were not qualified to make.

2. In an earlier investigation, referenced 20010865 we found the Council failed to complete a parent carer’s needs assessment with Mrs X. We also found it delayed investigating her complaint. The Council agreed to carry out a proper parent carer’s needs assessment by March 2022. However, Mrs X complained the Council failed to do so for a second time. Mrs X says this has caused further delay in establishing her needs and forced her to make a further complaint which was frustrating and upsetting.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We 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)

5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Parent carer’s needs assessments

6. The Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) places specific duties on councils to assess the needs of carers with parental responsibility for disabled children as well as young carers. Councils have an obligation to assess parent carers on the ‘appearance of need’ (Children Act 1989, section 17ZD/E), or if an assessment is requested by the parent, and to provide a written copy of the assessment to the parent carer.

7. A parent carer’s needs assessment must include an assessment of whether it is appropriate for the parent carer to provide, or continue to provide, care for the disabled child, in light of the parent carer’s needs for support, other needs and wishes.

8. To consider a parent carer’s wellbeing, councils must consider their:

• physical and mental health and their emotional wellbeing;

• ability to work, education, recreation or training;

• social and economic wellbeing; and

• family and other personal relationships.

9. Section 17Zd(12) of the Act states that in carrying out a parent carer’s needs assessment a council must involve the parent carer, the child and any person who the parent carer asks to be involved.

Working together to safeguard children guidance

10. Paragraph 10 of the guidance states that successful outcomes for children depend on strong partnership working between parents and the practitioners working with them. Paragraph 11 highlights amongst other things that children’s welfare is paramount, and their wishes and feelings need to be sought, heard and responded to.

11. Paragraph 187 of the guidance notes that a crucial part of children’s social care is providing help to disabled children and their families. When undertaking an assessment of a disabled child, practitioners should recognise the additional pressures on the family and the distinct challenges they have to negotiate as a result of their child’s disability. It states the assessment process should be strengths based, ensure the child achieves the best possible outcomes, enable the child’s family to continue in their caring role (where this is right for the child) and safeguard the child where appropriate.

Statutory children’s complaints

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.

13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.

14. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.

15. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.

16. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

The Council’s general complaints process

17. The Council has a general complaints process. It states it will usually respond to a complaint at stage one of this process within 15 days (25 days for complex complaints). If someone is unhappy with the Council’s response, they can ask to escalate the complaint to stage two. At stage two a Head of Service or Director will consider the complaint. They will usually respond within 20 working days (45 working days in complex complaints).

18. The Council’s website states that if someone makes a complaint using the wrong complaint process it will pass it to the right place.

How we considered this complaint

19. We have produced this report following the examination of relevant files and documents.

20. We gave the complainant and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited them to comment. We took any comments received into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

Background

21. Mrs X has a disabled son, referred to in this report as Y.

22. We decided a previous complaint from Mrs X in March 2022 (reference 20010865). As part of that complaint, Mrs X had complained that the Council did not carry out a parent carer’s needs assessment. The Council told us it assessed Mrs X’s needs as a parent carer as part of an assessment of Y’s care needs. We accepted that the Council was entitled to combine the two assessments. However, the report about Y’s care needs did not contain any evidence it had assessed Mrs X’s needs as a carer. We found this was fault. Amongst other things, we recommended the Council offered Mrs X a parent carer’s needs assessment and complete it within a month if she accepted.

23. The Council also agreed to review how it completed parent carer’s needs assessments to ensure that it:

• appropriately assessed parent carer’s needs (not just their views in relation to their children); and

• properly recorded its consideration of the parent carer’s needs.

24. The Council agreed to carry out our recommendations. Following our investigation the Council told us it had booked an appointment with Mrs X. It told us it now asked additional questions to capture the needs of parent carers during combined assessments following advice from colleagues in its Adult Social Care Department.

What happened

25. In March 2022 the Council contacted Mrs X to arrange a fresh combined parent carer’s needs assessment following our investigation.

26. Mrs X told the Council she did not want her son to be impacted by the assessment and she primarily wanted an assessment of her needs, while also seeking additional hours with a mentor service for Y. After some discussion, the Council agreed to carry out a combined assessment but without involving Y.

27. The Council met Mrs X to start the assessment at the end of April. Mrs X told the Council she would like the 2022 assessment to be a ‘lessons learned exercise’ and for the Council to acknowledge what was missing from an earlier assessment carried out in 2019. The Council completed the assessment via a further discussion with Mrs X in June 2022. It was issued in July 2022.

28. The assessment report confirmed the Council had not observed or assessed Y. However, it noted Mrs X gave the Council a report from the organisation providing Y’s education. Other than that, the report commented on information gathered for the 2019 assessment. Focussing on the information from 2019 was at Mrs X’s request, to avoid the need to involve Y.

29. The assessment noted Y was highly intelligent but that he had difficulty with anxiety. His anxiety led to him imposing pressures on himself to achieve. This had an emotional impact which could be severe.

30. At various points, the assessment report commented on and quoted from the 2019 needs assessment. Some of the passages quoted were critical of Mrs X’s presentation. Other passages quoted were complimentary. The assessor noted Mrs X was protective and passionate about supporting Y.

31. There were references to how Y’s presentation and behaviour would impact Mrs X, as Y’s carer. However, the report did not consider her needs as a carer.

32. In correspondence with Mrs X while carrying out the review, we note the Council agreed to Mrs X’s request for additional mentoring and more hours of support for Y.

Mrs X’s complaint

33. At the end of October 2022 Mrs X made a complaint to the Council about the July assessment. She expressed concern about how she had been portrayed in the report. She complained the social worker had ‘parent blamed’ her and described her as dismissive and uncooperative. Mrs X considered the report presented her concerns for her son in a sinister way and she stated the social worker had not listened to the family. She stated the Council’s approach and the comments within the report did not respect her human rights or take account of her disability, as she has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Mrs X also questioned some of the conclusions that social workers had made about Y. She stated they were not qualified to make decisions on medical issues. In addition, Mrs X complained that, again, no parent carer’s needs assessment had been done.

34. The Council responded to the complaint through its corporate complaints process. Its response recognised Mrs X disagreed with some of the statements made in the assessment report. It noted the assessment had been unusual, in that, Mrs X had not permitted the social worker to see Y. Rather, it was based on an earlier assessment report.

35. It stated many of the statements that Mrs X disputed were direct quotes from the earlier assessment, rather than comments made by her current social worker. The Council stated the social worker had facilitated what Mrs X wanted in terms of the assessment and completed the assessment to the best of her ability. It found the social worker could not have completed a more up to date assessment in the circumstances and it believed she had empathised with Mrs X.

36. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint on 20 November. She felt the complaint had not been fully responded to. The Council responded further in early May 2023. The Council did not agree the social worker had portrayed Mrs X as negative. It noted the assessment report was complimentary. The Council did not agree there was a failure to work in partnership with her or that staff had been discriminatory towards her. The Council noted social workers were entitled to offer a professional opinion about children’s needs.

37. However, despite a previous Ombudsman investigation finding that the Council had not conducted an adequate parent carer’s needs assessment, the Council found that its officers had again failed to do so. It noted that while officers had done an assessment, the focus was again on the child, rather than Mrs X’s needs as a carer. The Council offered Mrs X £1,000 to recognise the distress and time and trouble it had put Mrs X to as a result of the fault in her case.

38. Following a request from Mrs X, the Council considered the complaint at the third stage of its general complaints process. A further response was sent in October 2023. In it the Council acknowledged there had been a breakdown of the relationship between Mrs X and council officers. It apologised that this was her experience. It did not change its response to the complaint, but it reiterated its previous offer to make a payment to her to recognise the fault it had found.

Conclusions

39. There are three parts to Mrs X’s complaint. The first is that officers failed to properly engage with her when carrying out the parent carer’s needs assessment in 2023. The second is that they depicted her concerns and wishes as negative attributes and comments made in the report amounted to discrimination because Mrs X has ADHD. Also, that officers made comments about Y’s conditions that they were not qualified to make.

40. We found there was no fault by the Council in the first element; the engagement of officers. We say this because officers met with Mrs X, spoke to her to understand her views and reflected these in the assessment. Officers also had regard to Mrs X’s wishes in the way it conducted the assessment. While this shows the Council was willing to engage and respect Mrs X’s wishes, unfortunately it also presents an issue. In agreeing to carry out the needs and parent carer’s needs assessment without Y’s involvement, the Council did not have regard to its legal duty to involve him, as set out in the Children Act. The Council must include the child of the parent carer in a parent carer’s needs assessment and in any assessment of their own needs.

41. We understand Mrs X’s focus was on her needs as a parent carer and she looked to avoid Y’s involvement. However, a lawful parent carer need’s assessment could only be achieved with involvement from Y.

42. It seems to us that the Council’s policy at the time; to only carry out a parent carer’s needs assessment combined with a child’s needs assessment was part of the issue here. The Council need not have done a combined assessment in this instance. Had the Council applied discretion to carry out a separate parent carer’s needs assessment, Y would only have needed to be involved in that; not a full combined needs assessment, meeting Mrs X’s wishes as far as possible.

43. In any event, conducting the assessment without Y’s involvement did not have regard to the Council’s duties under the Children Act. This was fault.

44. The second part of Mrs X’s complaint concerns comments made in the report itself. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision a council has made to decide if we agree with everything it has said or done. Our focus is on the processes an organisation followed to make its decisions or conclusions. It is with this in mind that we considered the second part of Mrs X’s complaint.

45. In the assessment, officers referenced relevant information from Y’s education provider and referred to the previous assessment in 2019 as Mrs X had requested. Although we recognise Mrs X disagreed with some of the comments officers included about her and comments made about Y’s conditions, there was no fault in the references to earlier assessment findings. Officers are entitled to express their professional opinions and reach conclusions. We have no grounds to question the opinions and statements they made if there is no fault in the way they were made. We also found no evidence of discrimination in the Council’s approach or in the comments it made.

46. However, we did find further fault in the third area of the complaint. This related to the parent carer’s needs assessment. We found the Council failed to carry out an adequate parent carer’s needs assessment as part of the combined assessment.

47. The assessment report considered parenting capacity and made brief references to how some issues with Y’s presentation may affect Mrs X as a carer. There was a brief comment about how caring for Y affects her personal relationships. However, the assessment did not consider properly what impact there was on her mental health and wellbeing or the impact that caring has on Mrs X’s ability to work or socialise. There was no consideration of the support that may be made available.

48. It is particularly concerning that the parent carer’s needs assessment was flawed in this way given this is a repeat of the fault we highlighted in our previous investigation referenced 20010865. Moreover, the fault was repeated when the Council’s actions in this instance were supposed to be directly addressing our previous finding of fault and the Council should have been putting things right.

49. The Council is entitled to carry out a combined needs and carer’s assessment as long as it still complies with the requirements for a parent carer’s needs assessment. However, the evidence we have seen raises questions about whether the Council’s officers are properly trained to ensure both a service user and a carer’s needs are considered as part of combined assessments.

50. The Council told us it had since changed the forms used for assessments to include a separate parent carer’s needs assessment form. It believed this would enable greater focus on parents and their needs. However, the repeated fault we have identified also casts doubt on the Council’s quality assurance and management oversight of its parent carer’s needs assessments.

51. To compound the repeated error made by the Council, it did not address Mrs X’s complaint through the correct complaint process. Her complaint concerned a combined assessment of her disabled son’s needs and her needs as a parent carer. As a result, this should have been considered through the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint through its general complaints process. This was fault. It did not provide the independent oversight provided by the statutory complaints process.

52. There was further fault in the way the complaint was considered. The Council’s response at the first stage of the general complaints process failed to identify the flaws in the combined assessment. The Council did however, identify the fault at stage two of the complaints process.

53. There was also significant delay in responding. It took over five months to respond at stage two of its complaints process and over four months to respond at the final stage of the complaints process. These are significant delays which caused further injustice to Mrs X as they prolonged the period during which she has not been properly assessed to establish her needs as a parent carer. They also caused additional frustration and distress.

Recommendations

54. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

55. In addition to the requirements set out above, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mrs X for failing to carry out a proper parent carer’s needs assessment and for repeating this failing having previously carried out a flawed assessment. It should also apologise for the delay in considering her complaint. The Council should have regard to our Guidance on remedies, available on our website, which provides advice on effective apologies;

• pay Mrs X £1,000 to recognise the distress and time and trouble she was put to in bringing a further complaint to us. This is a higher amount than we would generally recommend. However, we agree that it is appropriate given the repetition of the fault which compounded the earlier error and delayed carrying out a proper assessment yet further;

• arrange for an Independent Social Worker to carry out a standalone parent carer’s needs assessment for Mrs X within eight weeks. If the completed parent carer’s needs assessment identifies that Mrs X should receive services, the Council should also provide a remedy for the loss of those services backdated to March 2022. This remedy should be in line with our Guidance on remedies. (We acknowledge that there will have to be consideration of Y in the independent social worker assessment, but not necessarily a full assessment of him.);

• provide training on how to conduct parent carer’s needs assessments both in writing and through discussion at team meetings;

• issue a briefing note to all relevant staff detailing complaints which fall within the scope of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. It should also circulate our Guide for practitioners with the briefing note; and

• undertake sample quality monitoring of parent carer’s needs assessments for the next six months to ensure the process is being carried out properly.

Decision

56. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council agreed to take the action identified in paragraphs 54 and 55 to remedy that injustice.

Print this page