Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying an increase to
Miss X’s package of care, and for failing to properly respond to her request for a new social worker. It has agreed to apologise and to make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that:
• In 2021, the Council changed its plan for her daughter to be adopted, and she went back into local authority care. The Council’s adult social care service found out about this (from its children’s social care service) in May 2023, but it failed to tell Miss X. Miss X only found out in 2024, which means she potentially missed out on three years of contact with her daughter.
• In November 2023, the Miss X’s care provider wrote to the Council and asked for Miss X to have a new social worker, because her existing social worker was not providing the right support. But the Council did not reply.
• After eventually being told – in 2024 – about her daughter’s adoption breakdown, Miss X received no support from the Council.
2. Miss X says these matters caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. In 2024, we investigated a very similar complaint from Miss X (case reference 24 001 826) about not being told about her daughter’s adoption breakdown. The previous complaint was about the Council’s children’s social care service; this complaint is about adult social care’s role in the same issue.
7. We treat each council as single, corporate entity. We do not find fault with individual departments or officers.
8. In our previous decision statement on Miss X’s previous complaint, we:
• found fault with the Council for significant delays in telling her about her daughter’s adoption breakdown;
• made clear that our finding of fault encompassed the whole period of delay – including the period about which she now complains;
• recommended a remedy for her injustice which took into account the whole period; and
• recommended a service improvement remedy to the whole Council, not just its children’s social care service.
9. If I were to investigate this matter, and if I were to find fault or make any recommendations, I would be covering ground we already covered in our previous decision. I cannot foresee a way to investigate without doing this.
10. For this reason, I have not investigated the first part of Miss X’s complaint (as summarised at the start of this decision statement).
11. I have, however, investigated the second and third parts of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council.
13. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

14. The Council has provided Miss X’s social care case notes. The first reference in these notes to Miss X requesting a new social worker was in February 2024, when the Council received a call from her care provider. The provider said Miss X had been told about her daughter’s adoption breakdown and would like some support. It also said she was asking for a new social worker.
15. In April, the Council submitted a request to its funding panel to increase the care Miss X received. The Council noted that the need for this increased support was “urgent”.
16. In May, when considering whether to meet with Miss X, her social worker noted that it may not be appropriate for them to meet, as Miss X had asked for a new social worker.
17. In June, the Council noted that the increase to Miss X’s care package had been agreed by the funding panel “some time ago”. However, due to an admin error, this increase had not been put in place, meaning “[Miss X] has been waiting a long time for the care to be formally increased”.
18. The Council also spoke to Miss X’s care provider. It acknowledged that its previous panel submission had missed out some of the necessary increases to Miss X’s care. It “apologised and explained this may need to go back to panel”.
19. Around that time, Miss X emailed the Council and asked for mental health and advocacy support. The Council responded, providing information about how to access mental health services. However, it said that – as Miss X appeared to be asking for advocacy support relating to ongoing childcare proceedings – this would be a matter for children’s social care or the courts.
20. In July, Miss X’s care provider told the Council that the care proceedings were causing her some difficulty. It said it wanted to “honour her increase [in care] that we have been requesting for some time”.
21. In September, the Council’s records say her increased package of care was in place, and that she had not been in contact to ask for more support. The Council reiterated that it had no role in supporting Miss X during childcare proceedings. It noted, again, that Miss X had asked for a change in social worker, but said it was closing the case until any further referrals were received.

My findings

22. I am satisfied that, when Miss X asked for support in February 2024, the Council took action. It asked its funding panel for Miss X to have increased support. So I do not agree that it failed to provide her with support. But:
• It did not put the increased support in place for several months.
• It did not request all the right support, and it had to amend this request two months after first approaching its funding panel.
23. By September 2024, the support was in place. But, given the delay evident in the Council’s records, I have found that it was at fault. And Miss X was likely caused distress by the delay (even many of her difficulties at that time were influenced by childcare proceedings, which were not under the remit of adult social care).
24. The Council did receive a request from Miss X (via her care provider) for a change of social worker. It is not for us to tell a council how to allocate cases, or which staff members to allocate them to. However, I note that there was no specific response to Miss X about this request.
25. This amounted to fault by the Council. If it had felt that a change of worker was inappropriate – which, as there was no change, I assume it did – it would have been helpful for this to have been explained to Miss X. A lack of explanation likely caused her uncertainty.
26. At the time of Miss X’s complaint to us she was receiving an increased package of care, and she needed no ongoing social worker support. With this in mind, there are no additional services which the Council should now deliver to remedy her injustice. But it should apologise, and should offer her a small, symbolic financial remedy.
    
     

Back to top

Action

27. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for causing a delay to her increased package of care, and for failing to properly respond to her request for a new social worker. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council should consider this guidance when writing to Miss X.
• Make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £150 to recognise that these matters likely caused her uncertainty and distress.
28. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

29. The Council was at fault, and this caused Miss X an injustice, which it will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman