Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council’s actions following the outcome of his children services complaint. The investigations found fault with the Council’s actions. Mr Q says the Council’s service had not improved, did not provide a personal remedy, and did not provide a sincere apology. Mr Q also complains the Council did not investigate a second complaint. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council. We recommend the Council provide Mr Q with a sincere and meaningful apology, pay a financial remedy, and to review its action log to ensure targets are set.

The complaint

1. Mr Q complains about the Council’s actions following the outcome of his children services complaint. Mr Q complains:

• the Council has not improved on how it delivers its service, especially the process for getting early help;
• the Council’s response to the stage three panel findings did not demonstrate empathy or sincerity;
• the Council did not consider a personal remedy;
• the Council refused to investigate a second complaint until after his first complaint had completed stage three of the statutory process, and;
• the Council has still not acknowledged or investigated his second complaint now the process has concluded. He says this demonstrates the Council has not improved its complaints handling.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The events Mr Q complains about date back to 2015. However, the scope of the investigation of Mr Q’s complaint under the statutory children’s services complaints procedure included all events dating back to 2015. So, I have exercised our discretion to also consider all the matters complained about. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B(3))
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr Q and considered the information he provided.
7. I have considered records and documents provided by the Council, including the documents which relate to the consideration of the complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
8. I sent Mr Q and the Council two draft decisions and considered their comments.
9. 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

What I found

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
11. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on the Councils to carry out an investigation when they have ‘reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm’. The enquiry will involve an assessment of the child’s needs and the ability of those caring for the child to meet them. The aim is to decide whether any action should be taken to safeguard the child. The child’s parents/carers will be interviewed, as well as the child (unless the child is too young). The assessment will also include information from the child’s school, doctor and other professionals.

Introduction

12. The Council investigated Mr Q’s first complaint under the statutory children services complaints procedure. As outlined above, the Ombudsman will not normally re-investigate the complaint unless he considers the investigation was flawed.
13. The material does not suggest the Council’s investigation of Mr Q’s complaint under the statutory procedure was flawed. I have therefore considered if the injustice caused by the faults identified at stage two and three warrant any further remedy, other than the ones already recommended. I have not re-investigated Mr Q’s complaint.

What happened

Early Help

14. Mr Q has two daughters, D and G. In September 2015, Mr Q contacted the Council’s Local Children’s Safeguarding Board for support as he felt unable to cope with D and G. The Council progressed this contact to early help.
15. There are no set processes for early help. When the Council decides early help is the most appropriate action, it will identify the most appropriate agency to pursue early help. The Council’s children social services and social workers are not involved in the ‘early help’ process.
16. The stage two investigation found “no tangible support was delivered to Mr Q and his children over a period of many months”.
17. The stage 2 investigation recommended the Council reviewed information on the Local Children Safeguarding Board (LCSB) website. It recommended the Council review information on the LCSB website to clarify:

• the role of children’s services in the hub and that early help is explained properly so individuals are clear it is not children’s services staff who will lead the early help assessment process,
• what early help involves.

Child protection and child in need

18. In January 2016, a referral was made to the Council about an alleged physical assault by Mr Q on one of his daughters. The information was passed to the child protection team for assessment. The Council appointed a social worker to progress the referral. The Council held a strategy meeting and agreed to make enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
19. The social worker completed a Child and Family assessment. The Council used the assessments to:

• gather important information about a child and family;
• analyse the child’s needs and the nature and level of any risk and harm being suffered by the child,
• decide whether the child is a Child in Need (section 17 Children Act 1989) and/or is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (section 47 Children Act 1989); and
• provide support to address those needs to improve the child’s outcomes to make them safe.

20. At an initial child protection conference (ICPC) in February 2016, it was agreed child protection plans would be put in place for D and G.
21. Part of Mr Q complaint was the social worker had only met with him on one occasion before the ICPC, when they delivered the completed Child and Family assessment. Mr Q also said the social worker did not meet or speak with other family members, such as D and G’s mother or grandmother.
22. The stage two investigation noted it was important Child and Family assessments considered all available information. It also highlighted “it was important that social worker’s clients are not left with the impression their views and concerns are not being listened to.” The investigation found the Council had not invited Mr Q to contribute to the assessment and that the processes followed to complete the Child and Family assessment were incomplete. This element of Mr Q’s complaint was upheld.
23. Between February and May 2016, the Council held four Core Group meetings. A Core Group is made up of relevant professionals and family members who work together to create, implement, and review a child protection plan. The Council invited Mr Q to the first Core Group meeting but it was later cancelled. The Council did not tell Mr Q about the cancellation and of the rescheduled date. The Council did not invite Mr Q to the other three meetings. The stage two investigation upheld Mr Q’s complaint that he had not been invited to all the important meetings.
24. In April 2016, Mr Q asked the Council to remove the social worker from the case. He told the Council he would not attend any meetings until this was done. Mr Q complained the social worker had communicated this to his children as him no longer wishing to be involved with them. Mr Q said the Council did not acknowledge his request.
25. The stage two investigation noted that “the social worker would say to the children ‘I see your dad’s not here again’ in a manner which could give a poor impression of their father” and that “the social worker’s communications in the Core Group meetings about Mr Q were not constructive”. The stage two investigation upheld this element of Mr Q’s complaint.
26. A new social worker was appointed in early July 2016.
27. The Council held a child protection review conference in July 2016. Following this meeting, the Council agreed it would step down the child protection plan to a child in need plan.
28. Between July 2016 and February 2017, there were four child in need meetings. Mr Q attended all these meetings.
29. The stage two investigation recommended the Council review the process for the management and coordination of meetings. It stated the review should include:

• The centralised management of all reports to be considered at any key meeting to ensure that all attendees receive these at the same time and have the same amount of time to consider them.
• Management of minutes from meetings.

30. It also recommended the Council:

• address the different messages given to service users about the timeframe for issuing completed Child and Family assessment report before the initial child protection conference, and;
• implement a process that records that managers and/or independent reviewing officers have verified all sources of information noted in a Child and Family assessment are correct.

Complaint process

31. Mr Q first complained to the Council in April 2016. The Council asked Mr Q for an extension in May 2016. Mr Q agreed to this extension. The Council responded to Mr Q’s complaint in June 2016.
32. The stage two report highlighted the Council should respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. It also noted the Council could extend this with the agreement of the complainant.
33. Mr Q asked the Council to investigate his complaint at stage two in July 2016. The Council acknowledged this request in November 2016 and appointed an investigating officer. The stage two investigation report was completed in February 2017.
34. The stage two investigation noted there was no statutory time limit for a request for stage two of the process to be invoked. However, it highlighted “regulations suggest a timeframe of 20 working days from receipt of the stage 1 response can be advised to maintain momentum in dealing with the complaint”. The investigation upheld Mr Q’s complaint and found the Council had not carried out the complaints process in accordance with statutory guidance.
35. The stage two investigation recommended:

• Training and direction to all Children’s services staff on complaints handling should be repeated regularly.
• Reassert the importance of ensuring complaints are dealt with promptly and effectively at the lowest level
• If an informal approach is taken outside of the statutory complaints procedure, then Council should ensure there is clear communication with the complainant to ensure they understand what is being proposed and whether they consent to it, the lead official in the information process should not have been involved in the earlier stages of the complaint and, a clear and reasonable timeframe for completion of this informal approach is set out.

36. The Council responded to the stage two investigation findings and agreed with most of the findings made. However, the Council did not uphold some elements of Mr Q’s complaint that had been upheld by the stage two investigation.
37. In May 2017, Mr Q requested his complaint be escalated to stage three but asked for time to prepare his information as he had just suffered a bereavement. Mr Q provided the Council with the information in August 2017. The stage three review panel was held in April 2018. Statutory guidance notes stage three panels should be held within 30 days of a request by the complainant.
38. The stage three panel considered the elements of Mr Q’s complaint which were not upheld by the stage two investigation and the Council.
39. The panel issued its findings four days after the panel hearing. Statutory guidance notes the panel has five days after the hearing to issue its findings and the local authority has 15 days to respond to the panel’s findings. The Council issued its response to the panel’s findings in May 2018.
40. The panel upheld four out of seven of Mr Q’s complaints and agreed with the recommendations that had been made by the stage two investigation.
41. The Council wrote to Mr Q following the panel’s decision, to outline the Council’s response to the findings. In this letter, the Council wrote “I would offer my apologies for any distress caused by your experience of contacting The Hub at the time of your complaint.” The Council did not apologise for any of the other faults identified.

Council’s progress on the recommendations

42. The Council said it has streamlined the process of early help. The Council said it did the following:

• Agreed the early help strategy in September 2018, which the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) oversees. The Council said the strategy was currently under review, with consultations held in January 2019.
• Established an audit process to look at the quality of the early help assessment. The Council issues monthly audit reports to highlight findings and any learning.
• Delivered training to professions to outline what early help is and how to complete an early help assessment. The Council said it recently introduced new training on supporting children and families with early help.

43. The Council provided an action plan outlining the steps it would take against the recommendations made by the stage two and three investigations.
44. The action plan was not clear on who was responsible for completing the action or the date the Council should complete the action by. It was also not clear what, if any, actions the Council had completed. There were also no actions listed for the recommendations related to communication.

Mr Q’s second complaint

45. Mr Q made a second complaint to the Council in May 2017. This complaint also focused on the Council’s written and verbal communication, allocation of a social worker, and the Council’s actions in supporting the family.
46. The Council told Mr Q in June it could not start further complaint investigations where to proceed would compromise a concurrent investigation. However, the Council said it would provide a response to address the issues.
47. In July 2017, the Council provided a response. The Council said this was its stage one response. The Council did not refer Mr Q to the next stage of the complaints process at the end of this response.
48. Mr Q said it was not clear this response was a stage one response. Mr Q asked the Council to investigate at stage two in August 2018.
49. The Council said it did not intend to progress Mr Q’s complaint because:

• Mr Q did not ask for his complaint to be escalated until 13 months after the stage one response was issued. The Council said while there was no time limit within for a complainant to request stage two, local authorities may wish to recommend the complainant does this within 20 working days.
• The issues raised in Mr Q’s second complaint are the same as the issues raised in his first complaint. The Council said it had already investigated Mr Q’s first complaint at all three stages of the statutory complaints procedure.
• The resolution Mr Q wants was outside the remit of a stage two investigation.
• Any further stage two or three investigation was unlikely to resolve the complaint to Mr Q’ satisfaction.

50. The Council asked the Ombudsman, in October 2018, whether we intended to investigate Mr Q’s second complaint. This query was overlooked by the Ombudsman and not addressed until January 2019.

Analysis

51. I will comment on each aspect of Mr Q’s complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council has not improved on how it delivers its service, especially the process for getting early help

52. The stage two investigation made several process recommendations with the aim of improving the quality of the Council’s service. The stage three panel supported these recommendations.
53. On early help, the Council explained how it monitored the effectiveness and impact of the process. The Council has also published its early help strategy for the years ahead. While I appreciate Mr Q remains unsatisfied with the process of getting early help, the evidence suggests the Council has developed a clear plan on how it will deliver early help. There are also measures in place to keep the process under review to ensure it remains effective.
54. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate steps to ensure it improves on the delivery of early help.
55. On the other recommendations made, the Council provided an action plan which it said incorporated the action points identified following Mr Q’s complaint.
56. The action plan does not:

• outline any specific actions
• set out target dates for completion;
• detail who has responsibility for completing the action, and
• detail how the Council will check progress on agreed actions.

57. Therefore, the action plan does not set out specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely targets (SMART). The Council said it plans to update the action log to include SMART targets but this has not yet been completed.
58. I appreciate the Council has committed to carrying out the recommendations by creating this action plan. However, I am not satisfied the Council has completed all the recommendations made. This because the action plan is not clear and only sets out generic actions rather than specific targets. This is fault.
59. I find the fault identified caused Mr Q an injustice. This is because the recommendations were made as a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr Q by the faults identified by the stage two and three investigations. Mr Q is entitled to have his agreed remedy completed.

The Council did not consider a personal remedy

60. The Council said it did not consider a personal remedy because Mr Q did not ask for one. Just because a complainant does not ask for a personal remedy, does not mean the Council should not consider one.
61. I must consider the extent of the injustice caused to Mr Q by the faults identified by the stage two and three investigations. This is to decide whether a personal remedy is appropriate in the circumstances.
62. Complaints process: the stage two investigation noted it took the Council 80 days to respond to Mr Q’s complaint. The normal timescale for responding to a complaint at stage one is 10-20 days.
63. Mr Q was not happy with the Council’s response and asked the Council to investigate his complaint at stage two in July 2016. The Council did not acknowledge this until November 2016. This was a delay of four months.
64. Finally, there was a delay in the Council holding the stage three panel. Although Mr Q first asked for a stage three investigation in May 2017, he did not provide full information about his complaint until August 2017. The stage three panel was held in April 2018, so eight months after Mr Q provided the full information. Statutory guidance notes stage three panels should be held within 30 days of the request.
65. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence the Council did not investigate Mr Q’s complaint in a timely way as there were significant delays at each stage of the process. This caused Mr Q an injustice because he did not receive the service he should have. This was distressing. Further, the poor communication about the progress of his complaint would have caused Mr Q frustration and uncertainty. Finally, Mr Q was inconvenienced as he had to chase the Council for updates and responses.
66. Communication: the stage two investigation found fault with the Council for its communication and service. The investigation found the Council had not invited Mr Q to key meetings and that the social worker had presented a negative impression of Mr Q to his children. The faults identified did caused Mr Q an injustice because he did not receive the service he should have. This was distressing, especially as Mr Q had asked the Council for support when he recognised he was struggling. Further, the negative impression presented to his children would have, on balance, negatively affected his relationship with D and G. This would have caused distress to not only Mr Q, but also to D and G.
67. Child and Family assessment: the stage two investigation found the processes the Council should have followed to complete the Child and Family assessment were incomplete. The fault identified caused Mr Q an injustice because he lost his opportunity to contribute to the assessment. While it is not possible to say on balance what would have happened if he had the opportunity to contribute, the fault identified nevertheless caused distress, frustration, and uncertainty for Mr Q.
68. Therefore, I find a financial payment is appropriate in the circumstances given the injustice caused to Mr Q by the faults identified.

The Council response to the stage three panel findings did not demonstrate empathy or sincerity

69. The Council sent Mr Q a letter following the stage three panel hearing and said its apology to Mr Q in that letter. The Council says it is Mr Q’s opinion that it had not show empathy or sincerity.
70. I accept the main purpose of the letter sent to Mr Q was to provide comments and clarification on each complaint element reviewed by the stage three panel. However, it is reasonable to expect the Council to have used that opportunity to provide a meaningful apology to Mr Q for the faults and injustice identified
71. I find the Council did not provide a meaningful apology at stage three which fully accepts the fault identified during the complaints process and recognition of the injustice caused by these faults. The Council said, “I would offer my apologies for any distress caused by your experience”. This is ambiguous as it does not recognise the faults identified was the reason Mr Q was caused distress. Further, the Council has not apologised for any of the other faults that were identified. This is fault.
72. I find the identified fault caused Mr Q an injustice. This is because, given the extent of the faults identified and the impact on Mr Q, he deserved a sincere, meaningful, and unambiguous apology.

The Council refused to investigate a second complaint until after his first complaint had completed stage three of the statutory process.

73. The evidence shows Mr Q made his second complaint in May 2017. The Council responded to this complaint in July 2017. This was before Mr Q’s first complaint had completed stage three of the statutory process.
74. I acknowledge there has been confusion whether the Council’s response in July 2017 was a stage one response. The Council does note in this correspondence that this was a response to Mr Q’s complaint. However, the Council had previously told Mr Q it could not start further complaint investigations where to proceed would compromise a concurrent investigation.
75. On balance, while I accept the Council could have been clearer, I find the Council had provided a complaint response to Mr Q’s second complaint before his first complaint had completed the complaints process. Therefore, I do not find the Council had refused to investigate Mr Q’s second complaint.

The Council has still not acknowledged or investigated his second complaint now the process has concluded. He says this demonstrates the Council has not improved its complaints handling.

76. The Council did not investigate Mr Q’s second complaint at stage two. The Council said this was because Mr Q did not ask for it to be escalated until August 2018, the complaint was about the same issues as his first complaint, and that the Council could not achieve the resolution Mr Q wanted.
77. It is clear the Council has now explained why it will not investigate Mr Q’s second complaint further at stage two. The Council has set out its reasons for this, which it is entitled to do. It appears the Council did not tell Mr Q this decision.
78. I accept the Council had sought clarification from the Ombudsman on whether we would investigate Mr Q’s second complaint in October 2018 and that we did not respond to this until January 2019. I again apologise to Mr Q and the Council for this oversight.
79. However, a lack of a response from the Ombudsman should not have prevented the Council from writing to Mr Q to explain why it would not investigate Mr Q’s complaint at stage two. The Council’s decision whether to pursue the complaint further was not dependent on whether the Ombudsman was going to investigate. This is supported by the fact the Council had not listed this factor as a reason for not investigating Mr Q’s second complaint further. Therefore, I am of the view the Council should have contacted Mr Q to let him know it would not be investigating his second complaint further. This is fault.
80. I find the fault identified caused Mr Q uncertainty and confusion as to what the Council was doing with his second complaint. This was an injustice.

Recommended action

81. In addition to the remedy already provided by the stage two and three investigations, I recommend the Council complete the following.

• Write to Mr Q to provide a sincere, meaningful, and unambiguous apology for the distress caused by the failings identified at stage two and three of the complaints process.
• The Council should also apologise to Mr Q for not telling him it was not going to progress his second complaint to stage two. The Council should write to Mr Q outlining its decision not to investigate and to provide the reasons why it will not pursue his second complaint.
• Pay Mr Q £300 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and frustration caused by the significant delays in the complaints process.
• Pay Mr Q £200 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and frustration caused by the Council’s poor communication, which meant that Mr Q was unable to properly contribute to the child protection enquiries, or attend key meetings relating to his children’s welfare.
• Pay Mr Q £200 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and frustration caused by the failings identified with the Child and Family assessment.
• Pay D and G £200 each to recognise the impact on family life the negative impression of Mr Q the Council presented to them would have had.

82. The Council should complete the above remedy within four weeks of the final decision.
83. The Council should also review the action log and set SMART targets which will help the Council achieve the recommendations made at the stage two and three investigations. The Council should also decide on timescales for the completion of actions. The Council should provide evidence it has done this to the Ombudsman within three months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

84. I find fault with the Council for not telling Mr Q it was not going to investigate his second complaint at stage two. I also find fault with the Council for failing to provide Mr Q with a sincere and meaningful apology at stage three. I have recommended the Council apologise to Mr Q and to pay him, and D and G, a financial remedy to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience caused by the faults identified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman