| SPOTLIGHT |
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has criticised two councils for failing to provide respite for families with children who have complex special educational needs.
The Ombudsman has recommended Redcar and Cleveland Council pay £6,100 for the distress caused and to make up for a child’s missed opportunities, and the London Borough of Croydon to pay £4,000 for the loss of service, distress and time and trouble a mother was put to.
In both cases the councils failed to meet people’s assessed needs and there were concerns over complaint handling from the Ombudsman.
In the Croydon case, the woman behind the complaint was the mother of a teenage boy who has Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and is largely non-verbal.
The report noted that the council argued that the care for the teen would cost significantly more than the average placement. This was despite the council “not assessing the teenager’s specific needs properly or taking into account he might need more than one-to-one care.”
Until he was 16, the teenager attended a residential school as a day pupil, which also offered weekly overnight respite care. The report notes that the school stopped providing respite care in December 2019. The council made enquiries with other providers but none could meet the teenager’s needs.
When the mother found a provider that could offer the support her son needed, the council would not agree, saying it ‘cost too much’, the Ombudsman found.
The mother could only pay for limited respite care by cutting back on other care her son needed. So, for three years the teenager had “insufficient or no respite care”, the report concluded.
Alongside paying £4,000 to remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman has also recommended Croydon provide the mother with direct payments for respite care, at the same level as was provided before October 2019 and until this is no longer needed.
Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “Councils have a duty to meet people’s assessed needs and cannot restrict the support they provide based purely on cost. In this case, a mother had no respite from solely caring for her teenage son because the council could not agree how much it would pay, despite a professional assessment deeming he most likely needed two-to-one care.
“I’m also concerned with the way the council handled the mother’s complaint. Councils can seek to get a better understanding and resolve a complaint early, but this should happen alongside the statutory process rather than replace it. Councils still need to follow the proper process and meet the timescales set out.
“I am pleased the council has finally agreed to all the recommendations I have made to remedy the situation for the family and ensure it learns from the things that have gone wrong.”
A Croydon spokesperson said: “We accept the report findings and recommendations, and we are sorry that we didn’t provide this family with the proper support in arranging respite care. We have apologised and compensated them for the distress this has caused, and we are continually working to improve our services for children and adults with disabilities, and their families.”
In the case of Redcar and Cleveland Council, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint from a mother of a boy with complex special educational needs which include Autism, who herself has Autism and other medical conditions.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found fault with the council’s failure to provide overnight respite services for the family, even after the boy’s mother had been in hospital for surgery herself. It also found the council did not consider the family’s complaint about discrimination properly, and that the council did not have “due regard to the family’s right to enjoy a family life”.
The report notes that in July of this year, the boy started a full-time residential placement, but this has since fallen through as it was felt this could not meet the boy’s needs. The boy remains a ‘looked after child’, and the council is proactively seeking a new placement for him.
Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “This family – and the mother in particular – have experienced significant stress and strain because of the council’s failure to put in place the respite support they so clearly needed.
“While I appreciate the difficulties the council faced sourcing appropriate support during the height of the pandemic, it still had a legal duty to provide the agreed care.
“I’m pleased the council has accepted my recommendations and hope the new respite facility it is creating will ensure other families are not left in a similar position in future.”
In this case, Redcar and Cleveland has agreed to apologise to the family and pay them a combined £6,100 for the distress caused and to make up for the child’s missed opportunities. It will also “proactively seek a new residential placement for the child” as soon as possible.
Redcar and Cleveland has been approached for comment.
Lottie Winson
