12. Mrs G found out on the day of the tribunal that the ICB had rejected her son’s private autism assessment, and she wants to know why. She is also concerned the ICB had not made the private provider aware of this. Had it done so, Mrs G believes the private provider could have provided some clarification to the ICB.
13. On 10 May 2024 the ICB decided it did not accept the quality of the private autism assessment as it could not guarantee it was compliant with NICE guidelines or other regulating authorities. It did not share the letter setting out this decision with Mrs G in advance of the tribunal.
14. Mrs G wants to know why the ICB rejected the private autism assessment. The ICB provided this explanation to her within its complaint response letter. This was in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling which says organisation should give clear, evidence-based explanations, and reasons for its decisions. Mrs G has been able to achieve this explanation through her own efforts in complaining.
15. It appears the ICB should have made Mrs G and the private provider aware of its decision sooner in line with our Principles of Good Administration which says:
‘Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely.'
16. We recognise she says the private provider could have provided some clarity to the ICB on its concerns. We do not know whether the private provider would have been able to do this before the tribunal.
17. It is reasonable to say finding out the ICB had not accepted the assessment at the tribunal caused Mrs G some short-term distress.
18. We understand the outcome of the tribunal was that the panel accepted the findings of the private assessment. We can therefore say that any delay in telling the private assessor, did not ultimately affect the outcome.
19. The ICB apologised the letter dated 10 May was not shared with Mrs G until just before the tribunal. It said it was not its intention to not be open and transparent with her in relation to the decision.
20. The ICB also set out some learning to try and improve its communication. This is something Mrs G told us she wanted to see. It recognised it did not have a formal protocol with the local authority (LA) around communicating with families in relation to queries from a tribunal. It had thought the LA would send her the May 2024 letter.
21. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say that to put things right organisations should provide an apology, explanation, and an acknowledgement of responsibility. We say organisations should take remedial action, which may include revising procedures, policies or guidance to prevent the same thing happening again, or training or supervising staff.
22. The distress we have explored falls within level 1 of our Severity of Injustice scale, therefore, the apology and learning is appropriate to remedy the complaint.
23. We are reassured that the ICB has acknowledged and apologised for the delay in communication and has taken learning to prevent recurrence in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling. We also understand that ultimately the tribunal panel did accept the private autism assessment in the tribunal outcome, therefore, there is no impact left unremedied.
24. We understand the importance of Mrs G’s complaint. We thank her for giving us the opportunity to investigate her concerns. We are aware she paid for a private assessment, and acknowledge the distress caused when the ICB did not accept it.