Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed, or caused delays, in providing Miss X’s assessed special educational needs provision and social care support. We found the Council failed to follow up on his rehousing application as agreed. It also failed to adhere to its complaint policy timescales. It should apologise, and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused Mr C and Miss X. There was no fault on other parts of Mr C’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained about the Council’s handling of his daughter’s (Miss X) special educational needs (SEN) provision and social care support. He said it:
• failed to consider Miss X’s needs and Mr C’s views in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process and caused delays;
• failed to implement the SEN provision set out in a Tribunal Order in 2021 and provide Miss X with a suitable school or suitable alternative educational provision;
• wrongly made Miss X subject of Child Protection Planning;
• failed to provide Miss X and her family with enough support in the EHC plan and Child Protection process;
• failed to move Miss X to a suitable accommodation or do adaptions to her home to meet her needs; and
• failed to provide him with a direct payment to meet Miss X’s EHC Plan and her assessed social care provision.
2. As a result, Mr C said Miss X had a loss of educational provision and care support, which caused her distress and uncertainty. He also said the family experienced distress and had time and trouble and costs towards solicitors to bring their concerns to the Council’s attention.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Mr C complaint about Miss X’s SEN provision and alternative provision, support to the family, and direct payment since 2021. I have also considered his complaint about a failure to provide adaptations to the home since 2019.
4. I have not investigated the other parts of Mr C’s complaint, reasons for which is set out in my analysis and findings below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
9. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as multi-agency teams. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
10. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr C’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr C and considered the information he provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• considered the law, guidance and policy relevant to the complaint.
12. Mr C and the Council 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

Legal and administrative background

Education, Health and Care Plans

13. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education, or name a different school. Only the tribunal can do this.
14. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
15. The council has a duty to secure the specified special educational provision in an EHC plan for the child or young person (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said this duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if a council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains responsible. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)

Alternative provision - General section 19 duty

16. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements.
17. The term “suitable education” is defined as efficient education suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs they may have. The education to be arranged by the council should generally be on a full-time basis unless, in the interests of the child, part-time education is considered more suitable, for reasons of their physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 19) We refer to this as section 19 or alternative provision.
18. There is no statutory requirement as to when suitable full-time education should begin for pupils placed in alternative provision for reasons other than exclusion. But councils should arrange provision as soon as it is clear an absence will last more than 15 days.
19. This applies to all children of compulsory school age living in the local council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school. (Statutory guidance ‘Alternative Provision’ January 2013)
20. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)

Council’s Direct Payment Policy

21. The Council’s Policy requires recipients of a Direct Payment to inform the Council of short period away and how the child or young person’s care will be provided. This includes hospital stays if this lasts more than four 4 weeks.
22. The Council can cease making Direct Payments. This may be where:
• the person no longer appears capable of managing the Direct Payment or managing the payment with support; or
• the person fails to comply with a condition imposed under the regulations to which Direct Payment are subject; or
• for some reason the Council no longer believes it is appropriate to make the Direct payments. For example the payment has not been used to achieve the outcomes of the Care and Support or EHC plan.
23. It will normally give four weeks’ notice to end or suspend a Direct Payment. It will then review the care and agree alternative support with the person, their carer or advocate.

Council’s Complaints Policy

24. The Council says it will respond to complaints within 20 working days under its stage one process and within 25 working days for its stage two process.

Background

25. Miss X has several health conditions including learning difficulties, a visual impairment and mobility difficulties. She requires adult support to meet all her care needs and is wheelchair bound.
26. Mr C and Miss X went abroad on two occasions since 2021. In early 2021 for 10 weeks, and from November 2021 to September 2022.

Miss X’s education

27. Following a tribunal appeal in 2015, Miss X was placed in Mr C’s preferred school which was in a neighbouring council’s area.
28. In 2019 an incident occurred in the school, which was reported to the local council as a safeguarding concern. The school investigated and dismissed the staff member involved. However, the local Council found the incident did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding concern.
29. Mr C withdrew Miss X from the school and told the Council it was no longer suitable for Miss X. The Council disagreed. So, Mr C appealed the Council’s decision to a tribunal. It found the school remained suitable for Miss X, but Mr C kept Miss X out of the school.
30. In 2020 Mr C asked the Council to amend Miss X’s EHC Plan and list another school (School Y), which was outside the Council’s area. He said the relationship with Miss X’s school had broken down and it was not suitable due to her anxiety of returning there.
31. The Council found another school within its area which it believed could meet her needs. However, during its consultation it found this was no longer possible. It decided Miss X’s school remained suitable and sending Miss X to School Y would amount to an unreasonable public expenditure. Mr C appealed its decision to a tribunal.
32. In early 2021 the Council started Child Protection planning for Miss X due to her lack of school attendance. It held Child in Need (CiN) meetings with Mr C and professionals around Miss X.
33. In spring 2021 the Tribunal decided School Y, an independent school, should be listed in Miss X’s EHC Plan. It found her current school was unsuitable due to concerns about providing some of her SEN provision, the broken-down relationship with the family, and Miss X’s anxiety about returning there.
34. The Council issued Miss X’s final EHC Plan in Summer 2021 which listed School Y. However, School Y subsequently told the Council it could not accept Miss X.
35. In late 2021 the Council amended Miss X’s EHC Plan again and identified schools it could consult to find a suitable placement for her.
36. However, Mr C asked for Miss X to be home educated in early 2022 and shared an outline of a curriculum with learning goals and activities with the Council.
37. The Council said it responded positively and told him about a personal budget and how to request this. It was confident Mr C was providing a suitable education for Miss X at home, as School Y’s assessment had shown she had made progress in her education. However, a personal budget was not arranged as it had not received a personal budget request from Mr C.

Housing and adaptions to Miss X’s home

38. In early 2019 Mr C asked the Council for adaptations to their home to meet Miss X’s care and support needs. This included changes to their downstairs and upstairs toilets, an upstairs ceiling track hoist, changes to the downstairs ceiling track hoist, and a suitable chair for Miss X.
39. The Council arranged for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess Miss X’s needs. The OT made recommendations, which the Council considered. It provided some adaptions but did not agree to most of Mr C’s request.
40. The Council completed a housing needs assessment in Autumn 2019, which found Miss X needed a level access property and shower. If this was not possible, a through floor lift was necessary but a ceiling track hoist would be appropriate.
41. In 2021 a virtual OT assessment took place to consider Mr C’s requests for adaptations. This also included the suitability of the chair the Council had provided Miss X, which could not be assessed until she returned to the UK. The OT did not agree with Mr C’s view but said he would discuss the requests with the Council. The Council told Mr C the requests would not meet Miss X’s long-term needs, and it would be best for the family to apply for rehousing.
42. Mr C said he applied for rehousing through the Council’s website in February 2021.
43. In Spring 2021 a virtual Child in Need meeting was held to put support in place for when Mr C and Miss X returned from abroad, which included a referral for advocacy support. It was confirmed Mr C’s housing needs assessment from 2019 had been shared within the Council.
44. An advocate started supporting Mr C and Miss X. However, this support ended in Autumn 2021. The Advocate said this was because Mr C expected support, such as legal advice, which she could not provide.
45. In Autumn 2021 Mr C provided a quote for a chair he found suitable for Miss X and requested adaptations again. The Council arranged a further OT assessment, but the OT did not agree the proposed adaptations were needed if the family was to be rehoused, and they would not meet Miss X’s long-term needs. The OT agreed to contact the Council’s housing team to follow up on Mr C’s housing application.
46. In response to Mr C’s request for a suitable chair for Miss X, the Council arranged a further OT assessment in Autumn 2022 when Miss X was in the UK. However, the OT did not agree Mr C’s requested chair was needed to meet Miss X’s needs. Instead, he suggested chair’s already available to the service should be trialled. The Council said Mr C has not agreed to do so and insists his quoted chair should be provided.
47. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Mr C has not submitted a completed housing application. It will ask its Social Worker to contact him to confirm if this was intentional.

Direct Payment for care support

48. The Council agreed Miss X had eligible care needs and a care plan was in place. This set out the Council’s assessed costs to provide the support, and a direct payment was in place for Mr C to manage the arrangement with their own carers.
49. Mr C and Miss X went abroad in early 2021 without notifying the Council.
50. Four weeks later the Council suspended its direct payment to Mr C as its policy does not allow for such payments and support to take place abroad if it lasts more than four weeks. It also said it had concerns about how Mr C had managed the care account as the balance showed the money may not have been used as set out in the care plan, and Mr C had increased the rate of payment to the carers to a level above what the Council would normally pay.
51. The Council told Mr C it would offer commissioned care, or a third-party managed direct payment when the family returned to the UK which would allow the existing carers to continue supporting Miss X.
52. While Mr C and Miss X was abroad, the Council continued to hold Child in Need meetings, its allocated Social Worker kept in contact with the family, an OT assessment took place virtually. The communication and appeal regarding Miss X’s education also continued during this time.
53. Mr C was not happy the Council suspended the Direct Payment and has refused to sign the Council’s proposed agreement for commissioned care, or a new Direct Payment agreement for a third-party managed account.

Mr C’s complaint

54. Mr C asked his local MP to raise his concerns about the suspended direct payment and Miss X’s education to the Council in 2021, and the Council provided its response to the MP shortly after.
55. Mr C complained to the Council in October 2021. The key points of his complaint were that the Council:
• failed to consider Miss X’s needs and Mr C’s views in the EHC plan process and caused delays;
• failed to implement the SEN provision set out in a Tribunal Order in 2021 and provide Miss X with a suitable school or a suitable alternative educational provision;
• wrongly made Miss X subject of Child Protection planning;
• failed to provide Miss X and her family with enough support in the EHC plan and Child Protection process;
• failed to move Miss X to a suitable accommodation or do adaptions to her home to meet her needs; and
• failed to provide him with a direct payment to meet Miss X’s EHC plan and her assessed Social Care provision.
56. Mr C also complained about the Council’s handling of the incident in Miss X’s school in 2019 and the suitability of her continuing there, and other matters including delays in the EHC plan process before 2021 and a failure to respond to his Subject Access Request (SAR).
57. In response the Council told Mr C it had not upheld his complaint. It explained:
• (School and EHC plan in 2021) following the Tribunal order it listed Mr C’s preferred school, School Y, in Miss X’s Summer 2021 final EHC Plan. However, School Y then refused to offer her a place;
• (Alternative provision) after School Y refused to offer Miss X a place, it had referred Miss X to a home tuition service, and in late 2021 it offered an alternative school which Mr C refused. It had since been willing to consider Mr C’s request to home educate Miss X, but Mr C has not provided his personal budget request;
• (Accommodation and adaptions since 2019) it suggested Mr C should bring his concerns about the requested adaptations to its contracted OT service;
• (Adaptions for home schooling since 2022) as Miss X had since become an adult, its Adult Social Care Team should assess her needs for support in her home to access her education. It said this should be completed by July 2022;
• (Support during the processes) acknowledged the family had experienced several life events which made their lives more difficult. However, it had put a care package in place, and Miss X could attend her allocated school up to Summer 2021. It had also provided the family with an advocate, but this stopped as Mr C expected support which the advocate could not provide;
• (Child Protection) Miss X’s case had been referred to a multi-agency team due to the Council’s concerns about her missing school and therapies. The team agreed for a child protection plan to be put in place. It also said concerns about this process should be raised to the conference chair; and
• (Direct Payment) a direct payment had been in place, but this was suspended in line with its policy as the family had left the UK for more than four weeks without notifying the Council, and it had concerns about how the payment had been managed. It had offered ongoing support through commissioned care or a third-party managed account.
58. The Council did find it could have done more to establish concerns about Mr C’s SAR.
59. Mr C was not satisfied with the Council response and asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He also said the Council had failed to respond to his complaint within the timescales set out in its policy.
60. Mr C raised further issues with the Council in Autumn 2022 as Miss X’s hoist had not been repaired. The Council explained it had not been told about this before, as Mr C had reported it to his landlord. However, it would follow this up with the landlord.
61. In response to my enquiries the Council explained its Adult Social Care team is yet to assess Miss X’s needs for adaptions in her home to enable her to access her home education.

Analysis and findings

62. Mr C complained about matters which occurred more than 12 months before he brought these to our attention. Parts of his complaint was therefore late. I have seen no good reason why he did not bring his concerns about matters before 2021 to our attention sooner. I will therefore only consider matters complained about since 2021.
63. However, as Mr C has continued to raise concerns about adaptations to the family home, I have decided to exercise my discretion to consider his complaint on this point since 2019.

EHC Plan and preferred school

64. It is clear Mr C and the Council disagreed about which school was suitable to meet Miss X’s needs as set out in her EHC plans. However, I cannot consider this matter as it has already been, or could be, considered by a tribunal.
65. Once the Tribunal decided School Y should be listed in Miss X’s EHC Plan in 2021, the Council would normally be expected to secure the placement. However, as School Y is an independent school, the Council had no power to force it to accept Miss X.
66. The Council consulted with School Y, which refused to accept Miss X. The Council was therefore not at fault for failing to secure Miss X’s placement at School Y.
67. I understand Mr C did not agree another review of Miss X’s EHC plan should take place. However, as it was not possible to place Miss X in the school listed in her EHC plan, an amendment was required. This therefore required the Council to restart the review process.
68. Normally, the Council would have been at fault for failing to finalise its amended final EHC plan since Autumn 2021, which would set out another school or elected home education for Miss X.
69. However, as Mr C and Miss X was abroad for 10 months, and Mr C had not provided a personal budget for the cost of educating Miss X at home, the Council has not been able to finalise the plan. Mr C has also recently asked the Council for more time to provide his budget. I have therefore not found the Council at fault for delays in finalising Miss X’s EHC Plan up to October 2022.

Alternative Provision

70. The Council had a duty to secure alternative provision for Miss X from July 2021. This was when she had returned to the UK and School Y was listed in its finalised amended EHC Plan, and it became aware the school would not accept her.
71. Miss X had been home schooled since Mr C stopped sending her to school in 2019. This continued when Miss X was outside the UK. Both the Council and Mr C agree she had progressed well during this time due to the education Mr and Mrs C has provided her.
72. The Council was under a duty to ensure Miss X received an education in school, or otherwise, between July and November 2021. The evidence available shows the Council:
• remained in contact the Mr C through its social worker and Child Protection meetings. Its aim was to find an educational setting which met Miss X’s needs and one Mr C would agree to;
• amended Miss X EHC Plan following School Y’s decision it could not meet her needs, and considered which school’s to consult;
• it considered home tuition and made a referral to its Pupil Referral Unit (PPU). However, this did not lead to home tuition as Mr C and the PPU could not agree of the provision;
• agreed to Mr C request for elective home education; and
• considered Mr C did provide an education to Miss X, which the Council and the Child Protection team believed met her short-term educational needs.
73. I found, on balance, the Council did enough to for Miss X received a suitable education and the provision set out in her final EHC Plan between July and November 2021. This is because it arranged for its PPU to visit Mr C and Miss X in their home, and an offer of home tuition was provided. I have not seen enough evidence it was the Council’s fault the offered provision did not start. Instead, it was Mr C who did not agree to the PRU’s offer and wanted more information, and detail about the educational provisions which was offered.
74. It appears reasonable to me for Mr C to have accepted the PRU’s offer of home tuition and raised any concerns he subsequently had with the Council about how the provision met Miss X’s EHC Plan.
75. I found it was not possible for the Council to put in place educational provision for Miss X during absence from the UK between November 2021 to September 2022.
76. When Miss X returned to the UK in September 2022, the Council again had a duty to ensure Miss X received a suitable education. I understand it may agree to Mr C’s early 2022 request to home-school Miss X, including the curriculum and outcomes he had provided for this. It asked him to request a personal budget for it to consider, but it has not received this request. I have seen no evidence the Mr C submitted his personal budget request for the Council’s consideration, it could therefore not make a decision.
77. As Mr C is yet to submit his personal budget request for to home school Miss X, he should provide this in the format the Council requested without delay, for it to be able to reach its view whether such arrangement would be suitable, including which of Mr C’s costs to home educate Miss X should be allowed since July 2021.
78. If Mr C has concerns about Miss X’s education from September 2022, he would need to raise a new complaint with the Council for it to consider his concerns.
79. In addition, the Council’s final complaint response said its Adult Social Care Team should assess Miss X’s equipment needs to support her home education by July 2022. As Miss X was not in the UK at the time, this was not possible. However, I would expect for such assessment to take place without delay now she has returned. Any concerns Mr C has about this matter, would also require a new complaint to the Council.

Child Protection

80. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed when it decided Miss X should considered under Child Protection. This is because the Council referred its concerns about Miss X’s lack of school attendance as a safeguarding concern. It therefore had good reasons for initiating the process, and the multi-Agency team agreed Miss X should be subject to Child Protection.
81. I cannot investigate complaints about bodies such as multi-agency teams, I have therefore not investigated Mr C’s concerns about its actions or decisions.

Adaptions and housing

82. Since 2019 Mr C has asked the Council for adaptations to his home to be able to support Miss X with her social care needs.
83. The Council arranged for its commissioned contractor to assess Miss X’s needs for adaptations on several occasions since then. Adaptations such as ceiling hoists and small support equipment was provided. However, the OT did not agree some of Mr C’s requests, including bathroom changes and a through floor lift, would be beneficial to Miss X’s long term care needs.
84. My understanding is the OT found the best way to meet Miss X’s social care needs would be for the family to be rehoused in a level access property, although most of her needs could be met in their current accommodation.
85. It is clear there were some delays and difficulties to assess Miss X as the family was abroad for long periods, however, the OT considered Mr C’s requests. I have seen no fault in how the OT reached his view. I cannot therefore criticise the merits of his decisions.
86. Based on the evidence available, Mr C applied for rehousing in early 2021. However, the application was not submitted, or it was not submitted correctly, through the Council’s website.
87. Normally, it would be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure a housing application has been submitted. However, in this case:
• the Council was aware of its OT service’s recommendation for the family to be rehoused to best meet Miss X’s needs in late 2020;
• the Council held a completed rehousing application from Mr C in its system, but due to what appears to be a technicality, this was not fully submitted. There were no notifications to notify Mr C the application had not been submitted;
• the Child in Need meeting in Spring 2021 confirmed the family’s housing needs assessment had been shared with the Council’s OT;
• in Autumn 2021 the OT said he would follow up on Mr C’s rehousing application with the Council’s Housing Team;
• the Council’s complaint investigations did not identify Mr C’s application had not been properly submitted; and
• in Autumn 2022 Mr C asked the Council for an update on their rehousing application and explained he had not received a bidding number.
88. I acknowledge there were difficulties for the Council due to the various professionals involved in the case, and the family being abroad for long periods. However, I found it caused a delay and a service failure. This is because it should have identified sooner Mr C’s application had not properly been submitted to ensure its OT recommendation for the family to be rehoused could be actioned.
89. While, I cannot say if the family would have been successfully housed since Spring 2021, it was a lost opportunity. The injustice the family experienced as a result was largely limited to the distress the uncertainty caused as they were abroad for most of this period and first returned in September 2022.
90. Mr C also said Miss X did not have a suitable chair in her home and the Council had failed to provide one. Based on the evidence available, the Council’s OT assessments since 2019 have not found Miss X needs a special chair to meet her needs, and the Council has offered chairs it believes to be suitable.
91. I acknowledge Mr C believes Miss X needs a specific adapted chair, however, the Council’s OT has considered his requests and found this is not an assessed need for Miss X. Therefore, without fault in the process, I cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision.

Direct Payment

92. The Council suspended Mr C’s Direct Payment for Miss X’s care support as set out in her care plan. I found the Council was not at fault for suspending the payment. This is because it did so as the family went abroad for more than four weeks without notifying the Council, which is not allowed under its Policy.
93. When the family returned to the UK, the Council did not offer for the Direct Payment to continue as it had concerns about how the payment was managed.
94. I understand Mr C does not want a third-party agent to manage the Direct Payment and he disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, I have not found the Council at fault. This is because:
• it reached a decision it was entitled to make and told Mr C its reasons;
• it offered commissioned care for Miss X, or for a third party managed Direct Payment which would enable Miss X’s carers to continue their support; and
• the Council’s proposed options is of no extra cost to Mr C, and each will meet Miss X’s assessed care needs. It is therefore for Mr C to agree to either of the proposals so the Council can put the arrangement in place.

Support for Mr C and the family

95. Mr C complained the Council failed to provide enough support for the family during the EHC Plan and for the Child Protection process.
96. I have not found the Council at fault for failing to provide Mr C with support. This is because, based on the evidence available, the Council:
• previously did a carers assessment for Mr C;
• had a social worker allocated to Miss X’s case who stayed in contact with the family throughout, including when they were abroad;
• provided Mr C with an advocate when he requested this;
• provided an interpreter for meetings;
• considered his request for another advocate when Mr C’s advocate stopped the support. However, as it found he wanted support which an advocate could not or would not be expected to provide, I told him it could not provide another advocate. It suggested he sought legal advice instead; and
• no longer has a Child Protection process in place.
97. I am also conscious the Council continued to communicate and attempt to put in place support in and outside the home throughout the period, despite the difficulties of doing so when Mr C and Miss X was abroad and the uncertainty around when they would return.

Other parts of Mr C’s complaint

98. Mr C has since raised concerns about the Council’s handling of his information request. The Information Commissioner Office (ICO) is best placed to consider such complaints, I have therefore not considered this part of Mr C’s complaint.
99. Mr C said the Council had caused delays in repairing a ceiling hoist in his home since September 2022. This is a new matter, which the Council only recently became aware of. If Mr C is unhappy about how the Council has handled this, he should raise a new complaint with the Council.

Complaints handling

100. Mr C said the Council failed to respond as set out in its Complaints Policy when he complained in October 2021 and escalated his complaint to its stage two process in January 2022.
101. The evidence shows the Council took two months to respond to Mr C’s stage one complaint, but it took five months to provide its final complaint response, which he did not receive until Summer 2022. This was fault as it was far longer than the timescales set out in the Council’s policy. I am satisfied this caused Mr C some limited distress due to the uncertainty this caused, and it delayed his ability to bring his concerns to the Ombudsman’s attention.

Back to top

Agreed action

102. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr C and Miss X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr C and Miss X, and pay Mr B £300 to acknowledge the family’s loss of opportunity to be housed in a more suitable accommodation to better meet Miss X’s assessed care and support needs; and
2. pay Mr C an additional £200 for the time and trouble he had to bring his concerns to the Council’s and Ombudsman’s attention, including the distress its delayed complaints handling caused.
103. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4. remind Children’s and Adult Social Care services staff to review whether necessary steps, such as rehousing applications, have been completed to ensure assessed care needs can be met, and inform the individual or their representatives if further action is needed; and
5. remind its staff to respond to complaints without delays and within the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints policy.
104. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

105. I have completed my investigation with a finding of some fault which caused an injustice. There was no fault on other substantial parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman