Redcar Council pays £6k for autistic child care failure

Redcar and Cleveland Council failed to provide adequate respite care to a boy with autism (file photo)

A council has paid £6,100 in compensation to the family of an autistic child after an ombudsman found it failed to provide adequate care.

Redcar and Cleveland Council said it faced "real challenges" finding respite care for the boy, known as Child Y.

His family said they were discriminated against and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the council was at fault.

The council has accepted the finding and apologised.

The mother of the child, who herself has a number of medical conditions, complained that the council failed to provide the respite care it agreed the family was entitled to, even when she was required to be admitted to hospital at one stage.

'Concerns about care'

The child had three-to-one overnight care until April 2020 when his provider ended its package following an incident with the boy. 

In July that year, the council agreed to increase the amount of overnight provision to 74 nights per year, via a different specialist service. 

But this was soon suspended because of Covid-19 restrictions, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

The council found another provider that would care for the boy in the family home, but the mother had concerns about the level of care and support on offer.

Overnight care was not provided to the family until June 2021, but the following August the mother said she could not cope with her son's level of need and the next month the respite was cancelled because of staff sickness.

In July 2022 the child started a full-time residential placement, but this has since fallen through as it was felt this could not meet the boy's needs. 

He remains a "looked after child" and the council is proactively seeking a new residential placement for him.

'Great lengths'

The council initially offered £1,000 in compensation, which was rejected by the mother. The ombudsman stated the amount did not adequately address the injustice she and her offspring suffered.

A council spokesman said the council did not operate residential respite but commissioned care providers.

"Our staff went to great lengths over a long period of time to secure suitable provision for Child Y and the family, contacting every relevant care provider in the region," the spokesman said.

"These requests were made during the pandemic at a time when providing the required care was extremely challenging.

"Despite extensive efforts, we were left unable to secure suitable respite care for Child Y, and although we did our very best to explore and offer alternative options, these were not accepted as being suitable for the family's needs."

The spokesman added: "We will continue to seek and provide the best care for Child Y."