Bromsgrove District Council (23 004 976)

Category : Children's care services > Disabled children

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 10 Oct 2024

Overview:

Key to names used

  • Ms X The complainant
  • Y Her child
  • The District Council: Bromsgrove District Council
  • The County Council: Worcestershire County Council

Summary

Ms X complained about the actions of the District Council and County Council in undertaking adaptations to a property to meet the needs of her disabled child Y. As a result, Ms X says the adaptations were not appropriate and further works were required. This meant the family was living in an unsuitable property for longer than necessary, which caused the family significant distress and disruption and meant Y had to spend six weeks in respite away from the family. Since 2019, Worcestershire Children First has provided children’s services functions, as a wholly Council owned company, on behalf of Worcestershire County Council, following a direction by the Department of Education. This has included having a Chairperson and Board made up of non-executive and executive Directors who were responsible for the day to day running of the Company. Where an organisation is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers, but the council remains responsible for the services, actions, and our recommendations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(a) and 25(7), as amended)

Finding

Fault causing injustice and recommendations made.

Recommendations

The Councils must consider the report and confirm within three months the action they have taken or propose to take. The Councils should consider the report at their 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)

To remedy the injustice caused we recommend:

  1. The District Council apologises and pays Ms X £2,000 to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by its delays and poor communication.

  2. The County Council apologises and pays Ms X £4,000 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the failure to ensure the initial plans met Y’s needs.

  3. The District Council and County Council, on a 50:50 basis, refund to Ms X the cost of her private occupational therapy and architect reports on production of a receipt/invoice.

  4. The District Council and County Council each pay Y £500 (a total of £1,000) to acknowledge the direct impact on Y of the Councils’ failings.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Councils should consider this guidance in making the apologies we have recommended.

It is unlikely that the specific circumstances of this case will arise in future due to Y’s complex needs. However, there are still wider points of learning that can be taken from this case and so we recommend, within three months:

  1. The District Council reviews its procedures to ensure:

    • communication with applicants is effective, that plans are clearly explained to applicants, so they understand what adaptations they are agreeing to;

    • any changes to plans are agreed with the occupational therapist to ensure they continue to meet the individual’s assessed needs and the applicant is made aware of these changes.

  2. The County Council meets with Worcestershire Children First to discuss this decision and takes appropriate steps to assure itself that Worcestershire Children First has taken suitable action.

  3. There is an agreement between the District and County Council (in consultation with Worcestershire Children First when it is acting on its behalf) as to who should be the specific point of contact for the applicant for major schemes where the adaptations are substantial.

  4. The County Council agrees a policy requiring its occupational therapists to involve an applicant as early as possible in the adaptations process to ensure the recommendations made are appropriate to meet the assessed needs of the child.

The Councils have accepted these recommendations.

Ombudsman satisfied with Council's response: 30 January 2025.

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