Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to carry out the agreed actions in a Child in Need plan it put in place for her daughter, C. The Council failed to undertake actions agreed in the plan. The Council has agreed to take action to prevent the fault reoccurring and make a payment to recognise the frustration caused and loss of respite.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to carry out the agreed actions in a Child in Need (CIN) plan it put in place for her daughter, C. She says the Council has:
• Failed to pay for respite care agreed in the plan without reminders, causing a delay of several months.
• Failed to hold Child in Need meetings;
• Transferred the case to a safeguarding team without a satisfactory explanation.
• Failed to respond to emails.
• Failed to carry out agreed actions regarding transition to adult care.
2. Ms X says this has caused stress and anxiety for her and her family and a loss of needed support. She says it has also affected C’s mental health.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered:
• The information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
8. Ms X and the organisation 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

Law and guidance

9. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
10. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

11. It requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
12. If a council is satisfied it is ‘necessary’ to provide support services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 then services must be provided regardless of the council’s resources.

Children’s statutory complaints process

13. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review.
14. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

Child in Need plan

15. C has learning difficulties and was adopted by Ms X.
16. The Council recorded C as a child in need in 2017, when she was 12, and issued a plan. The plan remained open until September 2021. The plan awarded direct payments to fund respite care. The Council funded respite care from March 2018 to March 2021 every month.
17. In July 2019 the Council reorganised its team structure. It moved C’s case to the safeguarding team as part of this reorganisation.
18. In March 2021 the Council did not issue funding for respite until Ms X chased it. It then issued respite payments monthly until September 2021 though Ms X had to chase to obtain payment. The Council did not make a payment for July 2021 so respite did not go ahead.
19. In June 2021 the Council proposed to close C’s case as there were no safeguarding concerns that met the criteria for cases within the safeguarding team. The Council closed the case in September 2021.
20. Ms X did not arrange for respite for C from October 2021 onwards because she did not have sufficient funds to pay for this. She says the loss of respite caused substantial friction in the family without these breaks and she became concerned the adoption might fail.
21. The Council carried out a new Child and Family Assessment (CFA) assessment in December 2021 for Ms X and C. It issued the CFA report noting the assessment recommendations in late March 2022. It recommended an application to the panel to reinstate respite care, a referral to the Transition Team to begin work preparing for C’s move to adult social care and a CIN plan whilst C settled into her new school.
22. C had begun at her new school in January 2022. The Council began funding C’s respite in February 2022 and made a referral to the transition team in June 2022. The transition team accepted C.

Statutory complaints process

23. Ms X raised a complaint in early August. She complained the Council had stopped paying for respite in February 2021. She said despite agreeing to arrange approval and back date payments this had not occurred. She complained this had continued to be an issue with poor communication. She raised concerns CIN meetings had not gone ahead and she was told the case shouldn’t be with the safeguarding team and was being closed.
24. She was unhappy with the response and escalated the complaint to stage two. The stage two response, issued in early December 2021, upheld four complaints and partly upheld a further two of the ten complaints agreed. The independent officer recommended the Council should:
• Apologise to Ms X.
• Carry out a new Child and Family Assessment (CFA).
• Arrange for a manager with specialist knowledge to consider referral to the Transition Team.
• Remind staff about filing and responding to emails, the frequency with which CIN reviews should occur, importance of recording actions and decisions and providing parties with details of outcomes agreed.
• Be clear which departments should deal with CIN cases.
25. In January 2022 the Council issued its stage two response and agreed to:
• Apologise by a set date.
• Carry out a CFA.
• Address issues identified in supervision within one month.
• Consider referral to the Transition Team.
• Share findings with all managers and learning with all practitioners.
• Work on strengthening policy and practice around supporting direct payments for children being supported outside the Children with Disabilities Service.
• Pay Ms X £400 to recognise the errors, the impact this had on her and the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
26. Ms X was unhappy with the stage two response and escalated the complaint to stage three. She felt the remedy did not acknowledge the impact on C and the wider family.
27. In March 2022 the stage three investigation upheld seven complaints and partially upheld one complaint. It agreed with the recommendations proposed at stage two and noted these had been responded to. It also agreed with the proposal of £400 financial remedy. It further proposed the following remedies:
• The Council consider why redacted minutes had been shared for meetings Ms X had attended.
• Explore whether C’s case history should be amended to remove reference to a CIN meeting in March 2020.
• Explore whether due diligence was carried out in the ending of C’s CIN plan and how this was communicated.
• Respond to Ms X’s additional concerns raised during the stage three meeting.
28. The Council agreed to all recommendations proposed at stage three in a letter to Ms X in late March.
29. In August 2022 the Council acknowledged Ms X should not have received redacted meeting notes. It also acknowledged there was no CIN review in March 2020 and notes confirming this should be added to the system. The Council stated it had previously accepted it had ended interventions too early and had reengaged with support.
30. In response to enquiries raised by the Ombudsman the Council accepted there was a gap in respite payments for October, November and December 2021 and January 2022. The Council offered to back date these payments at a cost of £1,520. It accepted this would have had an impact on C and Ms X and offered additional remedy payments of £400 and £200 respectively.

Findings

31. The stage two and stage three statutory complaints process found fault in the Council’s handling of C’s CIN plan in relation to most of Ms X’s complaints. It found there was a delay in paying for respite, a failure to hold CIN reviews, a failure to respond to emails, and poor communication.
32. I will first consider whether there was any fault in the decision-making process for those complaints not upheld. I will then consider whether the remedy offered by the Council is reasonable for the injustice caused.
33. The statutory complaints investigation did not issue a finding about Ms X having to remind the Council it had agreed to pay for respite in September. It is clear that it reviewed the evidence Ms X presented and the evidence available on file. As it could not find evidence to support her statements it made no finding. There is no fault in the investigation process as it considered all available evidence. If there was no fault in the decision making, I cannot question the outcome.
34. The statutory complaints investigation did not find fault in relation to Ms X’s complaint that she was verbally told that a CIN could only be on the register for one year. It reviewed the evidence presented by Ms X and the evidence on file when investigating this complaint. It concluded that it was unable to find any reference to a time limit on CIN plans. As the statutory process considered all the evidence available there is no fault.
35. Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s agreement to start C’s transition process in June 2021 was partly upheld. The evidence referred to in the independent report shows the statutory process considered the relevant notes from the June 2021 meeting, the internal notes and spoke to relevant members of staff. I appreciate that Ms X is unhappy with the outcome especially considering C has recently had a successful referral to the transition team. However, there is no fault in the decision-making process.
36. It is positive the Council has itself recognised there were faults in the CIN plan and how it was carried out. When considering whether the Council’s offer is appropriate, I must consider the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified.
37. Had the Council carried out an assessment in September 2021 C’s CIN plan would have likely been maintained. She has therefore missed out on the support from her plan including four months of respite payments outlined in her plan. The Council’s offer to make these payments now would mitigate the direct impact of the loss of respite.
38. Without a plan C experienced the stress and frustration as a result of the loss of support. The Council has during our investigation offered £400 to recognise the injustice caused to C. The offer is in line with our guidance on remedies and recognises the injustice caused to C as a result of the fault identified above.
39. The Council offered Ms X £400 to recognise the injustice caused to her and the time and trouble. It offered a further £200 during this investigation. Similarly, this offer is in line with our guidance on remedies for the injustice caused to Ms X.
40. At stage two the Council agreed to review its policy and practice regarding direct payments for children who were not under the Children with Disabilities service. The Council has confirmed during this investigation that it has reviewed this. It says it is currently trialling a new system for direct payments which will be introduced in March 2023. This remedy is in line with our guidance to prevent reoccurrence as such I would not recommend any additional action.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. The Council will within one month:
• Pay Ms X £1,520 in respect of the missed respite care payments identified between September 2021 and February 2022.
• Pay Ms X, on behalf of C, £400 to remedy the injustice C experienced as a result of the faults identified above.
• Pay Ms X £600 to remedy the injustice she experienced as a result of the faults identified above.
42. The Council will within three months complete its review of the policy and practice of direct payments.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to an injustice. I have recommended a remedy to address the injustice and prevent reoccurrence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman