The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to the complainant’s requests for the provision of social care services for her daughter. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council: gave her false information regarding eligibility for short breaks and direct payments, indicative of an unlawful policy; failed to respond reasonably to her request that it assess her daughter for the provision of services as a disabled child.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We 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 continue an investigation if we decide investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X asked the Council to assess her daughter’s eligibility for the provision of services to meet her identified needs. She says the Council’s response was flawed. She was informed that her daughter was ineligible for services as a disabled child and, as such, she could not qualify for the provision of short breaks and direct payments.
Mrs X’s daughter has been assessed for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mrs X has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), against the provisions of the EHC Plan the Council issued. The matter was dealt with as an extended appeal, considering social care matters as well as educational provision. The order issued by the Tribunal says that the Council should carry out a social care assessment and a parent carer assessment.
At the point at which Mrs X came to the Ombudsman, the Council had not implemented these parts of the Tribunal order, and had advised Miss X to refer the matter back to the Judge.
When deciding whether an investigation is warranted, the Ombudsman must consider whether there is anything substantial we can achieve. The complaint documents demonstrate that, since Mrs X’s complaint, the Council has accepted that it gave her false information regarding eligibility for short breaks and direct payments. It has apologised for this error. Investigation of this point would achieve nothing more.
Regarding the matter of the assessment of Mrs X’s daughter’s needs, I note that the Council wrote to Mrs X on 21 March 2024 about the implementation of the Tribunal order. The letter stated that it will assess to decide whether Mrs X’s daughter is a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 19189 and, of so, whether she requires support of the type set out in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
I understand that Mrs X does not feel able to engage with the Council on this basis. That is a matter for her. The Council has said the assessment will be holistic and will not be predetermined. It is not for us to speculate on the likely result. But the Council’s offer constitutes a reasonable and proportional response to the matters Mrs X has raised and the Ombudsman’s intervention would not add substantially to the outcome. That being the case, investigation is not warranted.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman