Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide adequate support for his disabled children and will not investigate the Integrated Care Board (ICB) as there is nothing more we could achieve. The Council has already offered Mr X a payment to reflect delays in completing assessments and Mr X’s complaint has been dealt with through the statutory complaints process. This included input from the ICB.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about Gateshead MBC (the Council) and NHS North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board (the ICB) - formerly Newcastle Gateshead CCG. He complains of their failure to provide adequate support for his two disabled children since 2017, specifically about:
• his children’s personal budgets;
• failure to backdate money owed and provide a suitable remedy;
• delay in sourcing alternative provision;
• carers’ assessments;
• failure to consider his evidence during the complaints process; and
• lack of the ICB's involvement in the complaint.
2. Mr X says this has impacted him and his family causing them distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. If the Ombudsmen are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies that are the subject of the complaint, they can complete their investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. These complaints are considered by a single team acting on behalf of both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA,as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. The Council and the ICB jointly commission the care package for Mr X’s children. The Council lead on the delivery of the package and took the lead in Mr X’s complaint. Any findings about the care arrangements therefore relate to the Council and the ICB.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedures

The three-stage process

9. 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.
10. The procedure is for the Council to investigate the issue at stage one, an independent investigating officer (IIO) together with an independent person at stage two and a review by an independent panel (the Panel) at stage three.
11. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsmen would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

12. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in July 2019. The Council considered this under stages one and two of the statutory children’s services complaints procedure. As part of stage two of the process, the IIO interviewed ICB staff that were involved in the care arrangements for Mr X’s children.
13. We have already considered delays in the early part of the process in an earlier complaint so this is not something I will re-visit as part of this complaint.
14. Mr X requested his complaint move to stage three of the statutory process late in March 2021.
15. At the time of the initial part of stage three of the process, it came to light that some of the information relied upon during the stage two investigation had been incorrect. The stage three review panel meeting was then postponed.
16. A second report by the IIO using the correct information was then re-issued in August 2021.
17. Mr X again requested his complaint be moved to stage three of the process in November 2021.
18. A stage three review was held by the Panel early in January 2022. A full report was issued by the Panel a week later.
19. Mr X later complained to the Ombudsmen.

Analysis

Personal Budgets

20. Whilst there were issues with some of the documentation provided by the Council as part of the initial IIO’s investigation, these were realised and subsequently dealt with before stage three of the complaint process began.
21. Issues relating to the personal budgets provided to Mr X’s family were reviewed as part of the stage three process and were not upheld.
22. The Panel considered that no restitution was appropriate.
23. I find that no worthwhile outcome can be achieved by further investigation. The issues relating to finance documents used in the initial IIO’s report were admitted by the Council and dealt with accordingly. I am satisfied stage three of the process dealt with this aspect appropriately and that the findings were clear.

Failure to backdate money owed and provide a suitable remedy

24. As part of the stage three process, issues and confusion relating to the personal budgets and finance were discussed. The Council has clarified its position on money paid in the personal budgets and how figures were reached. These aspects of the complaint were not upheld.
25. The Panel considered that no restitution was appropriate in relation to complaints made about finances.
26. The Council has stated there have always been sufficient funds to meet needs identified in the care plan and that a large surplus of direct payment monies remains, which in April 2022 stood at approximately £70,000.
27. I find that no worthwhile outcome can be achieved by further investigation as satisfactory explanations of the calculations were provided to the Panel.

Delay in sourcing alternative provision

28. Discussions relating to this aspect of the original complaint were held as part of the stage three process.
29. The Panel split this part of the original complaint into two separate parts when it completed its review.
30. Part one was the complaint that there had been a deficit in commissioned services as respite care for the children had ceased. Part two was that the Council took too long to review the children’s care plans and assess the parents’ needs.
31. The Panel reviewed the evidence for part one and found that it was not in a position to conclude whether part one be upheld or not upheld.
32. In relation to respite care stopping, the Council, in its response to my enquiries, stated that it had not itself commissioned the service. Mr X disagrees with this statement. Regardless of this, the Council also said that the direct payment made to the family had not decreased when respite care stopped and the option was there to use the funds to source alternative services or therapies.
33. In relation to part two, the Panel upheld the complaint that there was a delay in the assessment of needs as it had not been completed for some time. This was a change from the stage two investigation considering this aspect to be partly upheld. The Council has offered a remedy for this delay as reflected below in the ‘Carers’ assessment’ section.
34. I find that no worthwhile outcome can be achieved by further investigation of these parts as sufficient money remained in the personal budget to pay for other services.
35. The remedy the Council has already offered is sufficient to address the injustice arising from any delay in this part of the complaint.

Carers’ assessment

36. Discussions relating to this aspect of the complaint were held as part of the stage three process.
37. The Panel upheld the complaint that needs were not met due to a delay in completing a carers’ assessment. The Panel noted the Council had acknowledged delays encountered by the family. The Panel also noted that a payment of £1000 to the family by way of apology for the delays encountered had been offered by the Council.
38. This amount is greater than any remedy the Ombudsmen would usually recommend in similar circumstances and I therefore find that nothing more can be achieved by further investigation.

Failure to consider evidence during the complaints process

39. This aspect of Mr X’s complaint was discussed, addressed and reference was made to it as part of the stage three review process. It led to a revised finding for this aspect of the complaint in the stage three panel report.
40. The Panel considered that no remedy was appropriate.
41. The Panel also made a recommendation to the Council regarding the stage two complaint handling guidance given to officers. The Council agreed to this recommendation and says it has been actioned.
42. I find that no worthwhile outcome can be achieved by further investigation as the issues were raised and dealt with by the Panel and a recommendation made.

ICB’s involvement in the complaint

43. The ICB provided input into the stage two investigation and the responses therefore were essentially joint. The provision of care is a joint responsibility between the Council and the ICB. Given the Council is the lead organisation on the care provision and management of the personal budget, it made sense for it to lead on the complaint. It did this through its procedures and provided responses on behalf of both organisations.
44. The Council’s investigations addressed all of Mr X’s issues and although he did not agree with the findings, I do not consider more involvement from the ICB would have provided a different outcome. The Ombudsmen are therefore unlikely to achieve more by investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have ended my investigation about the Council. We will not investigate the ICB as we are unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman