Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint about the lack of support it provided to him when he inherited a large amount of money from his late father. He also complained the Council delayed investigating his complaint. The Council was at fault. It did not explain to Mr X how it was going to implement the recommendations and it did not address Mr X’s desired outcomes in its investigation process. The Council also delayed investigating Mr X’s complaint by approximately nine months. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and offered him a symbolic payment which was appropriate. The Council has not provided supporting evidence it actioned the recommendations made during the investigation. It has agreed to provide us with evidence it has actioned the recommendations. The Council will also share the statutory guidance with staff to prevent a recurrence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint about the support it provided to him when he inherited a large amount of money from his late father while he was in its care. He said as a result, he lost a lot of his inheritance money through expenditure which caused him anxiety and distress. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint via the children’s statutory complaints procedure and offered Mr X a remedy however, Mr X remained dissatisfied. Mr X also complained the Council delayed investigating his complaint which added to his anxiety. He wants the Council to reconsider its remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative.
6. I considered information provided by the Council.
7. I considered our ‘Guidance on remedies’.
8. Mr X, his representative and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
12. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including its view on any recommendations made and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response. The adjudicating officer should ensure that any recommendations contained in the response are implemented.
13. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
14. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing. The final response should set out how the council will respond to any recommendations the panel made.

Our role

15. The children’s statutory complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the children’s statutory complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
16. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

Background to Mr X’s complaint

17. From a young age, Mr X was a ‘looked after child’ under the Council’s children’s social services. This meant he was in the Council’s care. Mr X has neurological developmental health needs and mental health needs.
18. Around the time Mr X was a teenager, his father died. Mr X inherited a large sum of money from his father. Mr X said he asked the Council to place the money into a trust fund until he became 21 years of age. Instead, the Council placed the money into its own account and when Mr X turned 18 years old, it gave Mr X the money. Mr X said he spent most of the money.

Mr X’s complaint with the Council

19. In mid-July 2021, Mr X complained to the Council and said:
• the Council should have placed his inheritance money into a trust fund which he could access when he turned 21 years of age. Mr X believed this would have given him more time once he became an adult at 18 to sort out his housing, education and mental health instead of having to deal with a large sum of money;
• if the Council had placed the inheritance money into a trust fund, Mr X would have had access to Council-funded supported accommodation once he became an adult;
• considering his mental health and history of substance misuse, the Council should have supported him more once he had inherited the money; and
• the Council did not consider his neurological developmental health needs and that he struggled with social skills as it gave Mr X responsibilities he should not have had.
20. Mr X said as a result of lack of support from the Council, he had mismanaged his money and incurred debt arrears. Mr X wanted the Council to:
• apologise to him;
• provide him with compensation for his distress;
• clear his rent arrears; and
• reimburse him with costs resulted from mismanagement of his money.

The Council’s stage one investigation

21. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint. Towards the end of July 2021, the Council informed Mr X due to the nature of the complaint, it required more time to investigate. It provided Mr X with a stage one response in early-August 2021 and did not uphold his complaint. The Council said it believed it had supported Mr X appropriately.

The Council’s stage two investigation

22. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and in early-March 2022, he asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints process.
23. By the end of January 2023, the Council had investigated Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its process. The IO’s report stated the Council did not:
• properly explain to Mr X why it had placed his money into its account and did not explain other account options to him;
• provide Mr X with sufficient support considering his mental health needs and history of substance misuse; and
• provide Mr X with sufficient support considering his neurological developmental health needs and struggle with social skills.
24. The above aspects of Mr X’s complaint were upheld.
25. However, the report stated it was not clear whether the inheritance affected Mr X having access to supported accommodation. It said provision of supported accommodation was based on an assessment of a person’s care and support needs.
26. The report noted providing supported accommodation is means tested, meaning only those with funds under a certain level are eligible for council funding. Putting the inheritance into a trust fund could have been seen as a deliberate deprivation of assets if it was to avoid paying for care and support needs. If the Council decided Mr X had deprived himself of assets, it would have still taken the trust fund into account when deciding if it would fund supported living. The trust fund would have contained enough money to make Mr X ineligible for Council funding. The outcome of this complaint was therefore unsubstantiated.
27. The report included several recommendations to provide Mr X with a personal remedy and to improve the Council’s service. They included the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X and explain to him what recommendations and steps had been taken to remedy his complaint;
• consider whether Mr X had care and support needs under the Council’s adult social services;
• provide training to relevant staff in relation to looked after children and children leaving care with large amounts of money;
• review its policy to include information in relation to inheritance money;
• update its information available to the public so that it included information about saving and trust fund accounts and so on; and
• provide looked after children and children leaving care with appropriate financial support.
28. The IP’s report agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IO report. The Council prepared an adjudication report which set out its views on the investigation. It also agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IO report.
29. The Council shared the IO, IP and adjudication reports with Mr X in early-February 2023. It wrote to Mr X in March 2023 and:
• explained it had been working with relevant staff to prevent a recurrence of fault; and
• apologised to Mr X.

The Council’s stage three panel

30. At the beginning of March 2023, Mr X asked the Council to investigate his complaint further. He said despite the Council upholding most of his complaint at stage two, his requested outcomes were not discussed.
31. Towards the end of May 2023, at stage three, an Independent Review Panel was held to discuss Mr X’s complaint. The Review Panel’s findings mirrored most of the findings of the stage two investigation.
32. However, the Review Panel disagreed with the stage two investigation with regards to Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s failure to put his inheritance in a trust fund meant he was ineligible for supported living. The Panel found the Council had supported living designed for young people leaving care which was not means tested. It concluded this option was open to Mr X regardless of whether his money was in a trust fund or his bank account. It changed the complaint finding from unsubstantiated to not upheld.
33. The Review Panel commented the stage two investigation had failed to consider Mr X’s requested outcomes. It concluded the Council should apologise to Mr X and offer him a symbolic payment for the distress he felt due to its failings when he left care and for the time and trouble he went to in making his complaints. However, it did not agree the Council should clear his rent arrears and reimburse him with costs resulted from mismanagement of his money. It explained there was no evidence of Mr X having rent arrears and reimbursing him for the inheritance he spent would not be realistic.
34. Towards the end of June 2023, the Council issued a final response to Mr X. It agreed to some of the Review Panel’s findings but not all and explained its reasons to Mr X. It told Mr X it had supported him in the best way possible. However, the Council apologised to Mr X and offered him a payment of £500 for the distress he felt due to its failings and the time and trouble he had gone to in complaining.
35. Mr X did not accept the payment. He remained unhappy and complained to us.
36. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it had already apologised to Mr X at stage two and three of the investigation;
• it had referred Mr X to its adult social services; and
• following the stage two investigation, it had created a new policy which was focused on the Council supporting looked after children and children leaving care to manage their money, including inheritance. It said this had covered most of the recommendations made at the stage two investigation.
37. The Council did not provide me with evidence it had taken the above actions in relation to Mr X’s adult social care referral and its policy.

Back to top

Findings

38. At stage two of Mr X’s complaint investigation, the IO report recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and explain to him what recommendations and steps had been taken to remedy his complaint. The IO report also included recommendations for several service improvements. The IP’s report and the Council’s adjudication report agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IO.
39. The Council wrote to Mr X and apologised to him in its March 2023 letter. It also told Mr X it had been working with relevant staff to prevent a recurrence of fault. However, it did not explain to Mr X what specific actions it had taken to remedy his complaint. This was fault and caused Mr X uncertainty.
40. The Council told us it had referred Mr X to adult social care and created a policy which it said addressed most of the recommendations made at stage two. However, the Council has not provided us with evidence of its policy or explained how the policy meant it had completed the outstanding stage two service recommendations. It is difficult to see, for example, how creation of a new policy can mean the Council has actioned the recommendation to provide staff training. Without suitable evidence, I cannot say the Council has completed the stage two recommendations. This was fault and caused Mr X further uncertainty.
41. Mr X requested several outcomes of his complaint. At stage two of the investigation, the Council had overlooked this as it did not refer to them. This was fault and caused Mr X frustration. It also contributed to Mr X complaining further.
42. Mr X submitted his request to the Council for a stage two investigation in March 2022. The Council should have completed its stage two investigation within a maximum of 65 working days which is slightly over three months. Instead, the Council delayed its investigation by approximately seven months, which was fault.
43. At the beginning of March 2023, Mr X asked the Council to investigate his complaint at stage three of the investigation. The Council should have held the Independent Review Panel within a month of Mr X’s request. However, it delayed doing so by almost two months. The Council’s delay with investigating Mr X’s complaint was fault and not in line with the statutory guidance. The delay in this paragraph and paragraph 42 caused Mr X undue frustration and meant he went to time and trouble pursuing his complaint.
44. The Council offered Mr X £500 for the distress he felt due to the failings identified by the stage two and three and for the time and trouble he went through in complaining. We considered this symbolic payment was in line with our ‘Guidance on remedies’ and so have not recommended a further payment. It is open to Mr X to accept this payment.
45. The Council already apologised to Mr X twice during its investigation which was appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed actions

46. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed it will provide us with supporting evidence it has actioned the recommendations as outlined in paragraph 27 of this decision.
47. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed it will share the statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ with relevant staff to ensure:
• when a complainant has requested desired outcomes of their complaint, they should be addressed as part of the stage two adjudication response;
• where recommendations have been made at stage two, the adjudication response should set out the Council’s answer to each one; and
• complaints are completed within the statutory timescales.
48. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was at fault. It has already remedied the injustice caused and offered a symbolic payment which was appropriate however, I have made recommendations to prevent a recurrence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman