A family is to receive £1,000 compensation from the council after it failed to provide them with occupational therapy and education.
The Local Government Ombudsman set the compensation after a mother’s complaint about Brighton and Hove City Council’s handling of her son’s education health and care (EHC) between January 2023 and October 2023.
In the complaint, the mother said the council failed to consult with specialists, promptly arrange occupational therapy from the plan and communicate with her.
This resulted in her son, referred to in the report as S, missing out on the occupational therapy he needed, and she had to cover the cost of private specialist assessments.
In January 2023, the mother, referred to as Dr Y, asked the council to complete an EHC needs assessment, which the council decided it would not do in March 2023.
S stopped attending school in March, and the school asked the council to provide medical tuition, which started in June 2023.
Dr Y appealed the decision not to complete the EHC assessment, which the council did not oppose in July 2023, and agreed to complete.
The EHCP was issued in October 2023 by which time Dr Y had commissioned and paid for a private occupational therapy assessment.
In 2024, the council agreed to provide S with a package of education other than at school (EOTAS) and a personal budget.
However, in May 2024, Dr Y complained the case worker did not follow the correct procedures.
She also complained the council refused her reasonable request for consulting with an occupational therapist and speach and language therapist (SALT), failed to include preparing for adulthood in S’s EHCP, kept inaccurate records, wrote a draft plan without a meeting with Dr Y, left part of the EHCP blank, and medical tuition was not suitable as subjects were missing.
S did not receive English tuition or history, Spanish and music, which he wanted to take at GCSE.
In June 2024, a tribunal issued a decision with the order document stating the council agreed to provide EOTAS and a personal budget.
The council responded to say S was not open to the occupational therapist or SALT services, which were not in the EHCP.
The council also said because Dr Y commissioned private assessments rather than from a GP referral, the council did not consider it reasonable to reimburse her costs.
Preparation for adulthood is included in assessments for children from year nine onwards.
Dr Y asked the council to reconsider its response and in September 2024, the council responded to say it was not required to hold a co-production meeting before issuing the plan and its panel that decides needs assessments is in line with the law.
The council accepted S missed eight occupational therapy (OT) sessions in 2023 and offered to pay £100 in recognition of this and accepted the boy missed out on some education between June and September 2023, offering a further £500 compensation.
The ombudsman decided more than £100 compensation was needed for the missed occupational therapy and boosted the amount to £500.
In their report, the ombudsman said: “Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
“When this is not possible, as in the case of Dr Y, we may recommend the council makes a symbolic payment.
“When we recommend a remedy, we only take account of avoidable injustice that is the result of fault by the council.
“It is difficult to say exactly what effect the missed OT provision had on S, but as he missed eight out of a maximum 12 sessions, it would likely be significant.”
The £500 compensation for the missed tuition was considered a “suitable remedy”.
Cabinet member for children, families and youth services, councillor Emma Daniel said: “We fully accept the ombudsman’s findings and have apologised directly for the distress and frustration caused by our delay in assessment and our subsequent failure to provide occupational therapy sessions.
“As a council, we are committed to working with children and their families to make sure every child has access to the support they need to thrive.
“We are sorry we fell short in this instance and will take on board all recommendations made by the ombudsman.”
If Cllr Emma Daniel believes that the council only “fell short in this instance” she is living in cloud cuckoo land.
This type of situation is common when people try and access SEND support for their children from Brighton and Hove City Council. Most people are too exhausted fighting the system and coping with juggling parenthood to pursue a formal complaint to the ombudsman. The council know that, and rely on it, as they know most families won’t take their case to the ombudsman or a tribunal. It stinks.
In this case the council will have had the opportunity to have reviewed the parent’s formal complaint at multiple stages of its internal complaints process. The fact they didn’t recognise they were wrong then and forced the parent to go to the ombudsman (assuming that like most families let down by the council they probably wouldn’t) is dreadful.
If Cllr Daniel really understood the SEND crisis and wanted to do something positive to improve things, she would be lobbying her own Labour government to both address the SEND crisis as a priority (rather than the government wasn’t its energy on pet projects like digital ID), and also challenge them on the lack of funding and resources they give to councils.
Just wait until all the parents and soon-to-be grown up children start suing this council for a certain Toolkit they invented and are still using in schools against legal judgement to influence underage lifetime decisions.