Summary: Mx B complained about matters connected to the Council’s assessment of their child’s education, health and care needs. We upheld the complaint finding various faults in how the Council responded to Mx B’s service requests, their complaint and a request they made for reasonable adjustments. These faults caused Mx B distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action the action it has agreed to take to remedy Mx B’s injustice and improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mx B complained about matters connected to the Council’s assessment of their child’s education, health and care needs (‘Child C’). This investigation considered five key themes running through two separate complaint investigations undertaken by the Council:

• first, complaints about the procedure followed by the Council when responding to requests for specialist advice and / or assessments of C, to inform its overall assessment of their education, health and care needs;
• second, complaints about the procedures followed by the Council in response to requests that it assess C’s social care needs and / or provide services to meet those;
• third, complaints about the Council’s failure to make adequate reasonable adjustments to meet Mx B’s needs, given they have a disability;
• fourth, complaints about the Council’s communications with Mx B during the complaint procedure;
• fifth, that during its investigation of their complaint the Council did not consider first-hand evidence provided by Mx B. For example, where Mx B pointed the Council to specific emails explaining their disability and / or need for reasonable adjustments.

2. Mx B says because of the Council’s handling of these matters:

• not all relevant assessments of C completed in good time; there was delay in completing C’s education, health and care needs assessment and issuing a resulting Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan);
• that they experienced unnecessary distress in their attempts to resolve matters with the Council. Ms X says their experiences described in this investigation caused them significant mental harm, leading to the loss of their business and needing crisis support from health services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I 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 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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). This will be in advance of any publication on our website.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mx B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information they provided;
• correspondence exchanged between Mx B and the Council which pre-dated our investigation of their complaint;
• information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• any relevant, law, Government guidance or procedure referred to in the text below;
• any relevant guidance published by the Ombudsman referred to in the text below.

10. I also gave Mx B and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or new evidence they provided, before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

Education, Health and Care Needs Assessments including social care assessments

11. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and arrangements to meet them.
12. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out how councils should carry out education, health and care assessments and produce EHC Plans. The guidance flows from the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says:

• the process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Councils must complete steps as soon as practicable; 
• if the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks;
• if the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, the whole process from the assessment request until issue of the final EHC Plan must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply).  

13. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). These include: 

• the child’s educational placement; 
• medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child; 
• psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP); 
• social care advice and information; 
• advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable (my emphasis); and 
• any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment. 

14. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide advice. 
15. If a council’s children services (social care) have had no previous contact with a child or young person, it must carry out a new assessment to identify if there are social care needs for inclusion in the EHC Plan (see Section 36(20) of the Children and Families Act 2014). The law and guidance do not fix what form the social care needs assessment takes.
16. Councils can provide social care to children under various pieces of legislation. If a council provides social care under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (CSDPA) 1970 it must include this in Section H1 of the EHC Plan. If it provides support through Early Help services or under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (child in need) it should include this in Section H2 of the EHC Plan. 
17. There is a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against certain content in the EHC Plan. This can include the description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified. As part of an appeal about these matters a parent may request further specialist assessment if the Council declines to do so.

Reasonable adjustments

18. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
19. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. One of the protected characteristics is disability.
20. The reasonable adjustment duty is in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
21. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
22. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people might reasonably need. We have published guidance for local authorities called “Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities”. This looked at complaints we received about this topic and offers good practice advice to councils (see Focus Reports and Good Practice Guides - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman).
23. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as only the Courts can decide this. But we can investigate whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Chronology of key events

24. The chronology below sets out what I considered were the key actions and communications forming the events investigated.

Mx B’s first complaint

25. In March 2022 Mx B asked the Council to assess C and it agreed to undertake an education, health and care needs assessment. In June 2022 they complained about the extent of advice and information the Council proposed gathering as part of the assessment. Mx B gave reasons the Council should seek advice and information from various professionals. These included wanting the Council to commission assessments from occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and to assess C’s mental health and arrange for an assessment to see whether C had autism and / or an auditory processing disorder.
26. The Council considered the complaint via its complaint procedure, which has three stages. When the complaint was at the second stage of the procedure Mx B said C needed eight specific assessments. These included separate occupational therapy assessments for sensory and fine motor / executive function needs and two social care assessments, including one because C was a “young carer”.
27. During their correspondence with the Council, Mx B also explained they had a disability, saying they had autism. They asked the Council to reply in an “accessible format” – using short paragraphs and bullet points. Then, in August 2022, Mx B told the Council they were experiencing a mental health crisis.
28. In its initial replies to the complaint the Council defended the extent of information and advice it sought, in particular when C was not already known to some services. However, in its final, stage three response, issued in September 2022 the Council acknowledged fault. It recognised it had failed to secure social care advice and other assessments. It apologised and offered Mx B a symbolic payment of £500 for their time and trouble. It said that it would:

• ensure it took advice from children’s social care services to inform C’s EHC Plan;
• obtain specialist advice into three areas of need for C. It said it would commission private reports covering C’s mental health needs, their autism / neurodevelopmental needs and a sensory Occupational Therapy assessment.

29. In September 2022, Mx B told the Council they had a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
30. In October 2022 Council Children Services contacted Mx B. A social worker from its Disabled Children’s Referral and Access Team sent them an email saying they wanted to complete an assessment of C by mid-November. They said they wanted to accommodate reasonable adjustments needed by Mx B.
31. Mx B could not reply until mid-November. The social worker then replied saying they had closed the referral having extended the deadline for Mx B to respond to its contacts to the end of October. The Council has said this did not mean Mx B lost all access to services. They could still access short break payment money, for respite.
32. In December 2022 Mx B contacted the Council saying they had not heard about the social care needs assessment. They also said they had not heard about an audiology assessment for C, nor an ICT assessment (information and communication technology).
33. In response, later that month the Council set out:

• that it had issued its final EHC Plan which Mx B had appealed. It would consider requests for further assessments as part of the appeal process;
• that it would only undertake an ICT assessment if there was specialist advice from another professional (such as OT or physio) recommending this;
• that it understood children’s services had tried to contact Mx B multiple times but had closed the referral due to “non-engagement”;
• that it would consider an audiology assessment if recommended by a professional;
• its understanding that C would soon have a medication review relevant to their mental health.

34. In response, Mx B said the Council remained in breach of its duty to obtain relevant advice and information. They asked the Council to arrange six assessments for C. These included those promised in its September 2022 reply to the complaint and those Mx B asked for in December. They asked for a private assessment of C’s social care needs.
35. Mx B also said that they needed reasonable adjustments to communicate with the Council. Mx B asked the Council:

• to ensure all those it consulted with knew they needed reasonable adjustments;
• to send weekly progress reports;
• not to telephone without prior arrangement;
• not to send hard copies in the post unless essential (and to indicate this when sending information electronically).

36. In its next response the Council:

• said that Mx B could engage with its children’s services to obtain an assessment of C’s social care needs;
• that advice from an OT received in November 2022 did not recommend C needed a further sensory OT assessment;
• that it would arrange two further assessments to see whether C had autism and a clinical psychology assessment;
• that it agreed the reasonable adjustments requested by Mx B. It would begin sending weekly updates in January and only three named officers would contact them.

Mx B’s second complaint

37. Also in January 2023, Mx B complained the Council had not carried out the actions it had promised in September 2022. The Council registered this as a separate complaint in January 2023. Its summary of complaint encompassed:

• a complaint the Council had failed to ensure C had a social care needs assessment; an audiology assessment; a speech and language therapy assessment; a sensory OT assessment and mental health assessment;
• that the Council had discriminated against Mx B because of their disability. Mx B said they had not received weekly updates; that a failure to recognise their needs had led to the failure to complete C’s social care assessment; and an officer from the SEN service had called them without warning and then failed to make a later call as promised.

38. Before the end of January 2023, Mx B also spoke to a senior officer in its SEND service. Mx B understood they would receive a note of the call, but the Council did not provide this. In a contemporaneous email Mx B explained their understanding was the Council would not conduct a sensory OT assessment as promised when answering their first complaint (this was because an earlier OT assessment did not recommend this). But it would carry out an audiology assessment and ask children services to expedite its social care needs assessment. The call confirmed the Council would provide weekly updates and Mx B explained the impact on their mental health of previous communications with the service. The service manager replied to Mx B’s email, confirming this account of the call. They also added the Council would not commission a speech and language assessment.
39. In February 2023 the Council said again it would arrange further assessments for C, to see if they had autism and to assess their mental health needs. These assessments were with a different provider to that previously requested by Mx B. At this point Mx B had understood the SEN caseworker had already agreed the assessments with their preferred provided and Mx B had arranged for the assessments with that provider.
40. Mx B asked the Council to consider these exchanges as part of their second complaint. They also wanted the Council to agree to a new SEN Caseworker and a single point of contact moving forward. They wanted recognition that communications with the Council had triggered mental health illness. Later, Mx B also asked the Council to consider specifically its failure to provide a sensory OT assessment, challenging its reasons.
41. In its first response to the complaint, the Council:

• noted that it had failed to send an initial weekly update, but that Mx B later asked for cancellation of these. It said it had now agreed further reasonable adjustments to help in communications moving forward. It said the education service had shared Mx B’s need for reasonable adjustments with children’s social care;
• it did not agree to change C’s SEN Caseworker saying this officer should be Mx B’s main point of contact;
• defended the communications from its social care team when first asked to assess C’s needs. It noted the service was now back in contact with Mx B;
• sought to resolve the confusion over the autism and mental health assessments needed by C. It apologised to Mx B for the distress caused;
• offered a further symbolic payment of £400 for any delay and distress caused by its actions.

42. Mx B escalated their complaint. In their stage two request they set out further examples of where the Council had caused distress through communications not taking account of their need - including sending information late on a Friday. They reiterated their complaint about the Council’s failure to complete a social care needs assessment. They also made further comments around various assessments they considered C needed. They continued to be upset by the SEN Caseworker’s actions in respect of the autism and mental health assessments.
43. At the end of March 2023, the Council gave its stage two reply to the complaint. I summarise this as follows:

• the Council said it had “largely respected” Mx B’s need for reasonable adjustments but recognised it had made mistakes. Specifically pointing to its failure to respond to one communication when it said it would and in how it had put questions to them;
• it went over Mx B’s communications with children’s social care. It explained there were two parallel issues considered by children’s services in late 2022. The first, if Mx B could receive short break funding. The second, the requirement it carry out an assessment under the CSDPA 1970 – which would then inform the EHC Plan. The Council said it had now agreed that it would carry out a Children and Families Assessment instead;
• the response also provided an update on the Council’s view of the requests for advice and / or assessments made by Mx B, to inform C’s EHC Plan, which remained outstanding;
• it offered to increase the symbolic payment made to Mx B for the impact of its faults to £600. It set out a series of actions it would take including completing the social care assessment but said this would await Mx B confirming if they wanted contact from the service. It agreed a change of SEN Caseworker. It offered to draw up an individual reasonable adjustment plan with Mx B.

44. Mx B then escalated their complaint to the third stage of the complaint procedure. Mx B:

• listed 19 occasions between March and September 2022 where they said they had made the Council aware of their disability. They sent a subsequent email to the Council saying it had failed to make suitable reasonable adjustments during the complaint procedure;
• commented further on assessments they wanted C to have - for speech and language therapy and a sensory occupational therapy assessment.

45. The Council gave its final response to this complaint in July 2023. I summarise its reply as follows:

• it recognised that in May 2022 it had told Mx B it would commission a speech and language therapy assessment for C but had subsequently changed its mind. It said it would wait for the SEND tribunal to decide if C needed this assessment;
• it also considered any need C had for a sensory OT assessment was for the SEND Tribunal to decide;
• it could not add to its earlier replies about social care need assessments for C;
• it accepted Mx B had told the Council about their disability and that it had not “always ensured your needs were considered, accommodated, understood and communicated”. However, the response advised the author had not read through all communications, relying on a chronology prepared by its Children’s Complaint and Feedback Team. It supported the suggestion Mx B should have an individual plan showing what reasonable adjustments they needed;
• it recognised it could have clarified if Mx B wanted any contact with officers investigating their complaint. It also apologised for other individual errors of communication (for example, sending an email late on a Friday, outside working hours);
• it offered a further symbolic payment of £500 (so £1100 in total) for the distress caused.

46. While not part of the events I have investigated here I am aware that since Mx B made the complaints above, they have also gone on to make further complaints to the Council. I understand a feature of these complaints has been a continuing concern the Council is failing to meet Mx B’s needs a disabled person who requires reasonable adjustments.

My findings

Complaints about the procedure followed by the Council when responding to requests for specialist assessments

47. The Council has a duty to obtain certain assessments when carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This includes a social care needs assessment (if the child is not known to children’s services) and an education psychologist assessment.
48. In addition, the Council has a duty to consider parental requests for additional specialist advice, such as speech and language therapy or occupational therapy. It need not agree to such requests, which may result in the need for a specialist to assess the child. But it must consider them carefully and quickly. We expect the Council to give a reasoned response, engaging with any argument put forward by the parent about why their child may need specialist advice or assessment.
49. Where the Council has sought specialist advice – either where obligated to do so or has chosen to do so – it must then ensure it obtains that advice. The Regulations afford it a window of only six weeks to do so.
50. The Council’s own investigation of this complaint found it had misunderstood the law in this area. In September 2022 the Council acknowledged it had not dealt with that matter properly. I agreed with that finding and so found the Council at fault for its misunderstanding.
51. My consideration of the injustice this caused Mx B becomes complicated by the Council issuing C with a final EHC Plan around the time it gave its final reply to the complaint (October 2022). Mx B went on to appeal the Plan. Any appeal made by Mx B could encompass any grievance they had about the Council’s failure to secure specialist advice or assessments for C.
52. I considered the Council’s reply to Mx B’s complaint needed to take account of this. So, while it could properly indicate it would carry out further assessments, it should also have signposted Mx B to the appeal process if they had further disagreement on this issue. It should be for the SEND Tribunal to decide on the extent of advice or assessments needed for a specific child. So, we would not usually expect to see this type of complaint resolved via the complaint procedure.
53. I consider it was fault for the Council not to make this plain. As much confusion and duplication followed over the following months, when Mx B asked for consideration of advice or further assessments for C, as well as pursuing what the Council promised in September 2022.
54. I found Mx B would always have had cause to complain about the Council’s failure to carry out the specific actions it promised in September 2022. While the Council did offer a reasonably comprehensive reply to the complaint, it did not say who would commission the assessments it promised, nor by when. Part of good administrative practice in responding to complaints is that the Council has a procedure in place to follow up on the commitments given. It did not do that here, and that was a fault.
55. That led to confusion in early 2023 about who would arrange an autism and mental health assessment for C and with which provider.
56. There was then a further specific fault when the Council changed its position on whether C needed a sensory OT assessment. While it provided reasons for changing its mind, it should have recognised that it was going back on its word. It therefore needed to approach this matter pro-actively and sensitively. I found it did neither.
57. In considering the injustice caused to Mx B and C because of these faults, I could not take a view on whether C needed any particular assessment. This was because any disagreement on this point would be for the SEND Tribunal to resolve. But I considered confusion over responsibility for securing advice contributed to the delay in C receiving their EHC Plan. This in turn delayed Mx B’s ability to make an appeal.
58. In addition, Mx B had distress through unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. This was in addition to the already complicated process parents must navigate. It was also in addition to the reasonable adjustments Mx B needed and at a time they experienced significant ill health.

Complaint about social care assessments

59. As I noted above, the Council must consult its children’s social care service when undertaking an education, health and care needs assessment for a child. The exact format that assessment takes is not prescribed. Not all children whom the Council assesses, nor all children who receive EHC Plans have social care needs. And those that do, will have a range of need with some supported through early help, some as children in need and some under the CSDPA. While the Council cannot accurately predict the need without assessing, it follows there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to assessment.
60. Taking this into account I do not fault the Council for the type of assessment proposed around October 2022. The service wanted to assess if C needed services under the CSDPA. It had at that point agreed to delay the assessment and said it wanted to agree reasonable adjustments with Mx B. I did not think the Council at fault, therefore, at that point in time. Or else, any fault should not have proved fatal to C having a social care needs assessment.
61. But there was fault in what happened next. Because children’s services went on to close C’s case at the end of October 2022 without telling Mx B. This was clearly contrary to its social worker’s email which told Mx B the case would remain open into November. It also followed communications by Mx B who clearly had tried to engage but wanted adjustments agreed first. The Council’s action caused unnecessary distress and confusion therefore.
62. The service then compounded that fault by not quickly looking to re-arrange the assessment in November 2022 after Mx B got back in touch. Instead, C’s case went back on a waiting list. This should not have happened given the context in which the Council had closed the case.
63. There was also a lack of effective communication between the SEN service and Children’s Service to stress the importance of the assessment to the education, health and care need assessment.
64. Commenting on these findings above the Council has asked me to note it no longer carries a waiting list for those needing social care assessments to inform an education, health and care plan. It has also improved communications between relevant services, with SEN officers and social care officers meeting monthly to manage cases.
65. While I welcome these steps, the faults in this case caused Mx B distress which it has not fully remedied. I noted that in 2023 there was suggestion Mx B went on to disengage from the assessment procedure. Around the time their second complaint went to stage 2 of the Council complaint procedure they asked for no more contact from Children’s Services. I do not think it is possible to separate Mx B’s actions here, from their distress. Because the Council’s earlier actions led to mistrust setting in, with Mx B questioning if the service could work in a way that met their needs. I consider this breakdown in communications, flowing from the Council’s fault, will therefore have contributed to the poor mental health Mx B has experienced since the events described by this complaint began.
66. I also found no evidence that when Children’s Services got back in touch with Mx B in 2023 that it was proactive in looking to agree what reasonable adjustments they needed. This further added to Mx B’s distress.

Complaint the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments

67. I have not seen all the correspondence Mx B had with the Council from the time they first asked it to assess C’s education, health and care needs. But I have no reason to doubt Mx B’s account that in the original request and subsequently over the following months, they drew the Council’s attention, on many occasions to having a disability. I saw evidence that throughout the life cycle of their complaint, Mx B did this.
68. Initially I did not find Mx B made a clear request for reasonable adjustments, although their email in August 2022 asking for written communications in a certain format could be read that way. And in any event, as I noted above, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is not something a user of Council services must request. The Council has an ‘anticipatory duty’ to meet the needs of disabled people. So, I consider the Council should have sought early on in the history of Mx B’s complaint to offer to agree some reasonable adjustments to them. I considered its failure to do so was a fault. This caused Mx B further avoidable distress.
69. That said, I recognised during the evolving history of the complaint the Council agreed to make some reasonable adjustments. And these extended across both its corporate complaint and SEN services. I cannot see it always applied these consistently. The chronology above detailed instances where Mx B drew attention to the Council sometimes saying it would do one thing, and then doing another.
70. I did not consider the injustice caused by individual instances of failing to comply with reasonable adjustments significant. For example, failing to send a single weekly update, or an email later than agreed during the working week. But cumulatively, these instances of carelessness added to Mx B’s distress. I also thought it unhelpful for Mx B that they had to chase the Council further to the meeting they had with a senior manager in January 2023. The Council did not keep its own notes setting out any adjustments agreed.
71. I credit the Council proposed as an outcome to its investigation that it would agree an individual reasonable adjustments plan with Mx B. However, its failure to get on top of this issue sooner, in particular, in its liaison with children services, led to mistrust from Mx B.
72. It is simply not possible where someone receives ongoing services from the Council (be it education or social care) to draw a clean line under negative experiences and reset from a blank page. I was aware any recommendations I made in this area, would have to run alongside Mx B’s ongoing liaison with those services. But it is our job to try and put individuals in a position they should have been in, but for any fault. So, in looking to remedy Mx B’s injustice I wanted the Council to build on its offer to agree an individual reasonable adjustments plan with them.

Complaint about communications

73. I considered it hard to separate Mx B’s concerns about communications, from the matters discussed above. I have drawn attention to poor communications following the Council’s investigation of Mx B’s first complaint. It also follows that where the Council failed to make suitable reasonable adjustments its communications were defective. So, there were failings of communication in the Council’s handling of Mx B’s complaints and service requests covered by this investigation.
74. That said, I recognised the Council faced some challenges here. During the time between Mx B’s first and second complaints I noted their correspondence sometimes became longer and more complex. They also asked for issues to be added to their complaint. And it became hard at times to separate the complaint from ongoing service delivery issues, as there could be no neat division between past events complained about, and ongoing events.
75. For these reasons I made no specific further finding of fault in relation to this part of the complaint. But I recommended actions designed to encourage the Council to look again at how it communicated with Mx B. Neither party wanted to find itself locked in a cycle of complaint without an effective solution to how they could communicate effectively with one another.

Complaint about evidence used by Council in its investigation

76. Mx B’s main concern here was about how the Council considered their complaint about failing to agree reasonable adjustments. Mx B gave the Council a list of contacts they had with it from March 2022 onward recording their disability. But Mx B said the Council never went through this list.
77. I found that was so as there was nothing in the Council record or reply to Mx B to suggest it went through in detail its contacts with them between March and September 2022. Indeed, its final response to Mx B’s complaint made clear the Council relied upon a chronology of contacts, which was not fully comprehensive.
78. However, I did not consider it necessary for the Council to have done this. In its final response, the Council accepted it had not met Mx B’s needs as a disabled person. Once it reached this finding it would serve little practical purpose to explore the detail of individual failings. Instead, what was important, having acknowledged fault, was to recognise its impact on Mx B and offer a remedy. I differed from the Council to some extent, in considering what that remedy should be. But I found the extent of its investigation proportionate and so did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

79. The Council has accepted the findings set out above. It has agreed actions to provide a personal remedy to Mx B and to make service improvements to learn lessons from this complaint.

Personal remedy

80. To remedy the injustice its actions have caused Mx B, the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it will:
1. provide a written apology to Mx B, accepting the findings of this investigation and following the advice set out in section 3.2 of our published guidance on remedies Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
2. provide a further symbolic payment to Mx B of £200 (or £1800 in total following its previous offers of £500 & £1100). I calculated this as comprising £400 for the distress / uncertainty arising from the Council taking the wrong approach to the advice and assessments C needed; £400 for the distress arising from its poor communications following the outcome of Mx B’s first complaint; £500 for the injustice arising from the faults identified by its Children’s Services; and £500 for the injustice arising from its failings in agreeing timely reasonable adjustments with Mx B and errors in keeping to those;
3. confirm a single point of contact for Mx B for enquiries or correspondence they have around complaints made or registered with the Council. It will also agree a personal reasonable adjustments plan with Mx B and give specific consideration to the Council supporting Mx B with advocacy services. I noted that after we issued a draft decision in this case, the Council had already begun work towards this action.

Service improvements

81. The Council has agreed that within three months of this decision it will:
1. review its existing procedure for following up on actions agreed when it has upheld a complaint. This will cover how it ensures the complainant is aware of who will be taking any action agreed and by when. It will also cover how the Council make checks internally to ensure it has taken the action agreed;
2. provide a briefing to all SEN staff who respond to complaints, and corporate complaints staff, on the importance of signposting complainants to the SEND Tribunal appeal process where the substance of the complaint covers a matter which can be resolved by appeal. For example, where there is disagreement about whether a child needs a specific assessment;
3. review existing arrangements for when a child, subject to an education, health and social care assessment is not currently known to children’s services. This will consider how the Council can ensure it undertakes a timely and proportionate social care assessment for that child. It will also ensure staff working in both education and children’s social care services know what is expected of them and what to do where an assessment is not provided within six weeks;
4. circulate our focus report “Equal Access” among managers working within its complaints, SEN and children services. It will then ask them to remind staff of the principles of good administrative practice necessary for underpinning a commitment to ensure reasonable adjustments for disabled users of services.
82. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions set out in paragraphs 80 and 81.

Back to top

Final decision

83. I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mx B. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action that I considered would remedy that injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman