Care watchdog reprimands two councils for ‘catalogue of errors’ that left disabled child homeless

The home then needed “significant further alterations” because the adaptions that were done still did not meet the child’s needs. This is when the child had to be taken to respite care away from the family for six weeks while the extra changes were made.

The changes were funded by Bromsgrove and Worcestershire councils, and included a bedroom that was too small to accommodate access all the way around the child’s hospital bed or have space for equipment.

There was also a failure to consider the child would need a bigger bed in the room as they grew.

The LGSCO said the councils spent too long deciding whether to extend the bedroom by taking space away from the kitchen, which would have meant the family had nowhere to sit together at mealtimes, instead of extending the property further.

Garden adaptations meant the child could only access a small patio, which was too small for their wheelchair to turn on as the rest of the garden was only accessible by steps.

Both councils agreed to apologise to the mother and Bromsgrove has agreed to pay the mother £2,000 for distress and frustration caused by the delays and poor communication.

Worcestershire Council has agreed to pay £4,000 for the failure to ensure the initial plans met her child’s needs.

Both councils will also refund the cost the mother paid for her private occupational therapy and architect reports, and another £500 each for the direct impact on the child of their failings.

Bromsgrove Council has also agreed to review its procedures to ensure it communicates effectively with applicants to understand the adaptations and that any plans are agreed with the occupational therapist to ensure they meet the person’s needs.

Worcestershire Council said it will produce a policy to require its occupational therapists to involve an applicant as early as possible in the adaptation process to ensure recommendations made are appropriate.

Amerdeep Somal, the local government and social care ombudsman, said: “The councils focused too much on achieving adaptations that would fit within permitted development rights, rather than on providing a home that was suitable for the child’s needs. Because of this, the child and their family spent far too long living in a place that was fundamentally not good enough.

“The councils did not include the mother in key discussions and did not ensure she fully understood what was happening, and it’s certainly possible that the councils have now spent significantly more on changing the property following the initial works than they would have done had they got it right in the first place.”

Ms Somal explained that in cases such as this one where multiple different agencies are involved, councils should provide a single point of contact.

A joint statement from Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council said: “We have wholeheartedly apologised for our failure to ensure that the new home proposed for their family was properly adapted to meet their needs.

“We recognise that there were missed opportunities to address the concerns more promptly, and we understand the negative impact this had on their family while the issues were being resolved.

“We are committed to learning from this experience and will implement policy changes across both councils to improve communication between applicants and those involved in the housing adaptation process.”

This ruling by the LGSCO follows another investigation it published this week. A large city council has agreed to apologise after the care watchdog found that a disabled child lived in an unsafe flat for 18 months longer than needed.