London borough rapped over failure to act as 'corporate parent' of disabled girl

The Local Government Ombudsman has accused the London Borough of Lambeth of failing to act as a ‘corporate parent’ for a girl with multiple disabilities and complex needs.

The Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, also criticised Surrey County Council for failing to arrange therapy services for the girl when she was moved into voluntary foster care in the area.

A tribunal had ruled that the 12-year-old girl’s statement of special educational entitled her to regular one-to-one physiotherapy and hydrotherapy.

However, there was a delay of five months after the ruling before Lambeth provided the physiotherapy. There was another gap in provision when the therapist left.

The LGO investigation also found that there was a question over how much hydrotherapy the girl was receiving, as well as concerns that it was not linked to the physiotherapy.

When it was decided to move the girl to voluntary foster care in Surrey, Lambeth sent its counterpart her statement of SEN in preparation.

Surrey found a school for her that could meet her needs but did not ensure regular therapy was carried out, the LGO report said.

The Ombudsman said the county council had assumed that “weekly hydrotherapy and daily physiotherapy” met the requirement even though this was specified in her statement of SEN as being additional to the one-to-one provision.

A further gap of provision of over a year then ensued. Dr Martin also found there were problems with equipment provision and with money given to the girl’s parents for contact arrangements over this period.

The LGO found that:

• Lambeth failed to properly implement the physiotherapy requirement in the girl’s statement of SEN, which meant that it was not possible to align the physiotherapy with the hydrotherapy requirement, as was intended;
• There was confusion about responsibilities between the the two authorities when the girl moved into foster care, and a lack of equity in travel arrangements to facilitate contact between her and her father and mother;
• As a result, the girl was disadvantaged by the spasmodic delivery of the mutually beneficial treatments. “Her father suffered a great deal of distress and outrage, had to take time and trouble pursuing this complaint and is uncertain whether, had the treatment been delivered consistently and coherently, his daughter would now be able to walk.”

Dr Martin recommended that Lambeth pay £10,450 in compensation and Surrey £900.

The LGO said this was to reflect the loss of provision and the uncertainty as to whether the possibility of independent mobility for the girl may have been lost, as her father has argued.

The two local authorities have agreed to make the recommended payments.