Bradford Council has been rapped for maladministration for the second time in six days by local Government Ombudsman Patricia Thomas.

In the latest case, the authority has paid £1,500 to a couple who claimed social services had failed to do a comprehensive assessment of their handicapped son's needs and provide appropriate day care. They complained that suitable seating was also not provided for their six-year-old.

Mrs Thomas has concluded that the day care arrangements by the Council were "not as suitable as they might have been".

She said they reflected what the Council was in a position to provide, rather than what the youngster really needed. But Mrs Thomas said the parents had not suffered financially because the Council paid for three sessions at the nursery of their choice.

She accepted the Council's payment of compensation was a satisfactory remedy for injustice.

Today, the chairman of the Council's social services committee, Councillor Mike Young, said they took the decision seriously and it would be reported to members.

But he pointed out that the complaint had been made four years ago and said the Council had actually provided far more to the family than it was required to.

He said he was confident the member of staff concerned believed the best interests of the boy were being served.

Mrs Thomas said in her report that the youngster was handicapped and suffered from epileptic fits. She said she thought the Council's policy for providing special seats was too inflexible.

She accepted the family's argument that an assessment would have at least provided some certainty for them about the level and extent of any help. But Mrs Thomas said it was unlikely that any additional provision would have been made by the Council.

Last week, the Council was ordered to pay £500 to two countryside organisations after the Ombudsman found the Council guilty of maladministration. The awards were made to the Silsden, Draughton and Addingham Bridle Association and Pennine Packhorse Trust.

The riders complained they were forced on to the road because bridalways were obstructed.

Mrs Thomas concluded that the Council had set aside work on some of the routes because it was doing a two-and-a-half year long survey of the district's rights of way.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.