SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the partnership failed to handle their application for their child (A)'s placement at a residential facility reasonably. A has a genetic condition, mental health issues and significant learning disabilities. A had identified a residential placement for individuals with their condition. C applied for a place supported by A’s social worker and medical professionals. The decision on the placement was taken by the Strategic Resource Allocation Group (SCRAG). The SCRAG met to discuss and declined the placement on the basis that A could explore support closer to home, in keeping with the national ‘Coming Home’ agenda. C believed that there had been a second SCRAG meeting that also rejected the application but that no minute was available for it. C said that the SCRAG had not given due consideration to the medical and other supporting evidence. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the SCRAG had followed procedure and considered all the evidence submitted. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for SCRAG decisions and so our investigation looked at whether procedures had been properly followed. We noted that the second meeting was not a SCRAG meeting but a meeting in response to the placement decision, which had asked social workers to explore support options for A further. We found that the SCRAG was conducted in line with its terms of reference and the decision was one it was entitled to make. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. However, it should have been made clearer to the family what the SCRAG process involved and that the decision from the first meeting was final. C also complained that the partnership failed to follow the Child Friendly Complaints Process reasonably. We found that A was capable of understanding and being involved in the complaint process. The partnership failed to comply with its legal duty to involve A in the complaints process and give them the opportunity to express their vie

C complained about the social work assessment of their adult child (A). A had fragile-X syndrome (a genetic condition that causes a range of developmental issues), which affected them in a variety of ways. A’s long-standing care worker had retired and A was experiencing difficulties which were putting them and their family at risk. C believed that unreasonable assumptions were made about A’s ability to function independently because of the level of support their family provided for them. A had been referred for assessment by a psychologist and the partnership's social work department. A was assessed by social workers as not eligible for support. C challenged this, because A’s psychology assessment recommended that they receive support. The partnership refused to alter their decision, saying that the psychology report was inappropriately worded, and that they would seek to have it reworded. C complained to the SPSO that this was unacceptable and that the partnership had failed to handle their complaint properly. We took independent advice from a registered social worker. We found that the assessment of A by social workers was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Although the partnership wrote to C saying that they would seek to have the wording of A’s psychological assessment reworded or redacted, there was no evidence that they had asked for this. We found that the psychological assessment was inappropriately worded, as A’s eligibility for support could only be assessed by social workers. Social work raised reasonable concerns about this with the psychology team. We found that C’s complaint was handled unreasonably, as the partnership failed to discuss it with C, and consequently did not address all the points of concern C wished to raise. We upheld the complaint.

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the partnership's handling of Ms A's financial contribution towards her care package. Ms A had received an invoice for unpaid arrears and said that she was never informed that she had to make a financial contribution, and that she had not received any previous invoice before she was notified of the arrears. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that Ms A was provided with clear information about her requirement to make a financial contribution towards her care package. However, when difficulties in making those payments became apparent, we considered that the partnership did not take adequate proactive action to support Ms A to manage her finances. As a result, Ms A found herself in substantial debt. We upheld Ms C's complaint and made a number of recommendations. As a result of our recommendations, the partnership exercised their discretion and waived part of Ms A's accrued care charges.