Miss B’s son is severely autistic, non-verbal and lacks mental capacity in terms of his care and support needs. Miss B’s Advocate complained on her behalf about the Council’s refusal to change her son’s Social Worker, as a result of the breakdown in Miss B’s relationship with the Social Worker. The reasons given by the Council was that it would not be in her son’s best interest. Miss B was unhappy with the Council’s subsequent handling of her complaint and the reasons it gave for not progressing her complaint to the next stage (Stage 2) of the social services complaints process.
The Ombudsman noted that under the regulations that govern social services complaints, there is provision for a council not to accept a complaint from a representative of a person who lacks mental capacity.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s response setting out its reasons for not taking forward a Stage 2 investigation could have been more carefully worded as it was not sufficiently clear. Given that the Council was relying on best interest considerations, the Ombudsman noted that there is a mechanism/process for endorsing best interest decisions in the form of best interest consultation meetings which Miss B and relevant consultees could attend.
As part of an early resolution the Council agreed to apologise to Miss B for its communication about her Stage 2 request not being as clear as it could have been and to meet and consult with relevant consultees including Miss B as part of a best interest consultation meeting. This meeting would look at the Council’s best interest position for not changing Miss B’s son’s Social Worker.