The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s delay in providing the support his family needed when the Council received a referral about his daughter’s emotional wellbeing and self-harming behaviours. The Council apologised and accepted it could have acted sooner to provide support for the family. In addition to the apology and service improvements already proposed, the Council will pay £300 to Mr Y in recognition of the distress caused by fault.
The complaint
Mr Y complains about the level of support received from the Council’s Early Help service for his daughter, X, who has self-harmed. Mr Y says the Council only offered online services and did not offer any face-to-face support. He says the Council’s criteria made it impossible for the family to receive the immediate support they needed.
Mr Y also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint and its failure to refer his complaint for independent investigation at stage two of the statutory complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr Y by email and considered any information he provided. I also made enquires of the Council and considered its response I issued a draft decision to Mr Y and the Council and invited their comments. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened The Council received a referral from a mental health team in June 2021 following concerns about X’s emotional wellbeing and disclosures about self-harm.
Four weeks after the referral the Council invited X’s mother, Mrs Y, to attend an online workshop about self-harm awareness. The purpose of the course is to help parents and caregivers understand and manage self-harming behaviours in young people.
Mrs Y attended the next available course on 14 August 2021, which was approximately nine weeks after the Council received the referral about X.
The Council says Mrs Y provided positive feedback about the course. The Council maintains it was deemed to be the most appropriate way to support the family at the time. This is because the Council says that professionals involved with supporting X said she was not ready to engage with direct support. The Council instead focussed on providing support to X’s parents.
In the meantime, the Council says X continued to receive support from mental health services. Additionally, on 9 July 2021, the Council says it offered a placement for X in an online youth group as well as some in-person activities. The Council says it also reiterated that Early Help workers would be available over the summer period to support X if she wanted to speak with someone on a one-to-one basis. Mr Y disagrees with the Council’s recollection of events.
The Council’s record of the conversation show that Mrs Y agreed to speak with X about the summer activities and would contact the person dealing with X’s case should the family wish to accept the offer. The Council says it received no further contact from X’s parents to confirm their decision, and so the service thought the family had declined the support.
After speaking with the leader of the course attended by Mrs Y, the Council decided the family would benefit for support around relationships and communication. The Council allocated an Early Help worker for X on 25 August 2021.
Dissatisfied with the lack of support provided, Mr and Mrs Y complained to the Council. They considered the Council had a blanket policy whereby eligibility for help via Early Help was dependent on the attendance of an online course.
In response to the complaint, the Council apologised for the delay in arranging one-to-one support for X which it agreed was, in part, due to the wait for Mrs Y’s online course.
Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice?
In response to our enquiries, the Council accepts it could have been more proactive in clarifying with Mrs Y that she would need to contact the service again to access support. The Council has apologised for not providing this clarity. It has also provided a case note to support its account of the telephone conversation with Mrs Y on 9 July 2021.
The Council’s case note was entered retrospectively in April 2022 following Mr Y’s complaint to the LGSCO. Due to the significant passage of time, and the possibility that some elements of the conversation may not have been recalled accurately, I cannot place any significant weight on this case note as contemporaneous evidence.
On the balance of probabilities, and based on the evidence seen, I find the Council at fault for concluding the family had declined outreach work. There is no evidence of this. To the contrary, it is clear the family were proactive in trying to secure the help that X needed.
Although I understand X has now received the support she needs, I consider the failure to proactively support X and her family in June and July 2021 caused avoidable injustice. This was further exacerbated by the nine week wait time for the online course, which the Council has already apologised for.
I understand Mr Y is concerned the Council adopts a blanket approach to insist that families undergo online courses before receiving Early Help support. He says this approach was suggested by a manager during a telephone conversation in August 2021. Mr Y says the manager said it was ‘possible’ that face to face support would not be provided if Mrs Y had not attended the online course.
We asked the Council to provide a copy of any policies which stipulate this as a requirement for Early Help. The Council explained it does not have any such policies in place. Instead, its approach at the time was based on professional opinion of what was best for X.
While the Council’s actions caused Mr and Mrs Y added frustration and distress at an already difficult time, I am mindful that X was in receipt of services from a mental health team during the period complained about. I am also mindful not to interfere with the merits of the Council’s decision that Mr and Mrs Y would benefit from receiving support with parenting strategies. I have taken these factors into account when considering any remedy due to Mr and Mrs Y and X.
In addition to the apology already offered, the Council has also taken the following remedial action: Spoken with staff who dealt with X’s case about their communication methods and ensuring “a shared understanding at the end of conversations” Strengthened the offers available to families and children, including pathways and access to information Developing a triage process with colleagues in Children and Adolescence Mental Health (CAMHS) to allow greater multi-agency discussion around self-harm.
Invested in an online wellbeing community which offers safe support to young people struggling with their mental wellbeing; and Further developing the Early Help webpage to support easier access to services, information and pathways for support.
The LGSCO welcomes the service improvements already undertaken by the Council, however to fully remedy the injustice to X and her family the Council has agreed to undertake the action in paragraph 27.
Complaint handling Mr Y asked the Council to conduct an independent review of his complaint at the second stage of the complaints process. The Council’s response to Mr Y, issued on 21 September 2021, offers an apology and invites Mr Y to contact the Council again should he want a further review of the complaint.
When he requested a second stage review, the Council asked Mr Y to clarify what he wanted as an outcome to the complaint. Mr Y said he wanted someone to independently review the Council’s ‘criteria’ for Early Help. The Council responded to say the matters raised by Mr Y were dealt with in the first response and that he should now approach the LGSCO.
I understand Mr Y had hoped for an independent investigation commissioned by the Council. However, X was not in receipt of statutory social care services at the time of the matters complained about and so Mr Y’s complaint did not fall within the remit of the statutory complaints process. The Council was not at fault for responding to the complaint under the corporate procedure.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will: Pay £300 to X and her family. This is in recognition of the distress caused by the delay in allocating a support worker between June and August 2021. As the above statement sets out, we consider some of this delay was avoidable and the Council should have taken a more proactive approach in offering the support which X and her parents needed.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The agreed actions provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman