Agenda item

The Local Government Ombudsman has investigated a complaint against Kent County Council and concluded that there was fault by the Council which caused injustice to the complainant. The Ombudsman has issued a public report regarding the complaint.

Mr A Mort, Customer Care and Operations Manager, was in attendance for this item.

1.            Mr Mort outlined the complaint, by a parent seeking financial support for her disabled teenage son in the school holidays, and summarised the Ombudsman’s report and findings. The Ombudsman had found the County Council’s Direct Payments policy to be too restrictive, with insufficient scope for flexibility and officer discretion in individual cases, and found that the Council had not taken sufficient consideration under Carers’ legislation of the mother’s need to work and hence need for child care support.  The County Council had feared that to provide childcare in the school holidays may set a precedent for other cases, at great cost. However, the Council had accepted the Ombudsman’s findings and would be taking the following action: to change its Direct Payments policy to allow more scope for officer discretion, to train staff so they understood the scope they had to apply discretion, to pay the complainant £1,000 in compensation, for time and trouble and stress caused, and to review the sufficiency of its provision of care for older children during the school holidays. Mr Mort responded to comments and questions from Members, as follows:-

a)    asked what lessons the County Council had taken on board from the process, Mr Mort explained that  it was clear that the complaint took longer than it should have done to resolve, partly because the involvement of independent people at stages 2 and 3, although an important part of the process, required time to arrange.  In addition, because the complainant’s son had special educational needs, there had been a question over whether the complaint should be considered under the SEN appeals process or the statutory complaints process. At stage 3, the independent Complaints Review Panel, Kent would offer a complainant the opportunity to go to an independent Complaints Review Panel or direct to the Ombudsman, and it would in future make clear to a complainant their entitlement to have their complaint heard by an independent Complaints Review Panel.  In the case in question, the Ombudsman had been approached directly and had referred the case back to the County Council for consideration by a panel at stage 3;

b)    asked what legal advice the County Council had taken, and when, in response to the complainant’s early assertion of the legal framework and precedent for her claim, Mr Mort explained that Legal Services had been consulted and been advised that the Council’s Direct Payments policy was sound but had identified the possibility that it fettered the Council’s discretion.  However, this had been some time later in the process. Legal Services had been approached once more when the case was referred to the Ombudsman; 

c)    the complaint had taken one year in total to resolve, and although the complainant would now receive a compensation payment, she had experienced stress as a result of pursuing the complaint; and

d)    a view was expressed that, although the natural first instinct when receiving a complaint was to become defensive, it was important to give as much help as possible as soon as possible, and to explain the policy and its impact carefully.  Although it would inevitably take time and effort, a personal visit would be a good way to approach a complainant and could be more helpful than sending an official letter.  Mr Ireland advised that there had necessarily to be some level of bureaucracy in a statutory complaints process and it was important that a complainant be sent a written response which they could then submit to the Ombudsman as evidence. He added that the independent people considering the case had not identified any problem with the County Council’s approach up to that stage, including the level of legal advice sought. Because the regulations and policy around Direct Payments did not address the issue of care for disabled young people in school holidays directly, and Carers’ legislation also did not cover this issue fully, to have discretion in applying policy was even more important.  The Council needed to ensure that staff were fully aware of the scope to apply discretion over and above the policy framework and of the process for applying this discretion. The fact that the complainant’s son was a young person in the transition stage between children’s and adult services had made the case more complicated. 

2.            RESOLVED that the information set out in the report about the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation, and the additional information given in response to comments and questions, be noted, with thanks.