Summary: Miss X complains that the Council has failed to safeguard her daughter. She disagrees with the findings of an independent investigation into her complaint. She says this has caused stress, distress, and cost time and trouble. The Ombudsman upholds Miss X’s complaint because we find fault causing Miss X injustice. The Ombudsman finds that, on the whole, the Council has remedied the injustice caused by the faults. However, the Council will apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by failing to have monthly meetings to update her on her daughter’s progress.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains that the Council has failed to safeguard her daughter. She disagrees with the findings of an independent investigation into her complaint. She says the evidence proves the findings are wrong.
2. Miss X says this has been lifechanging. She says it has caused stress, distress and unbearable pain. She also says it has cost her time and trouble.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Miss X initially complained to the Council in May 2017. The Council put her complaint on hold while there were lengthy family court proceedings to do with Miss X’s child. The Council took up Miss X’s complaint again once the court proceedings had finished.
4. Putting Miss X’s complaint on hold was entirely appropriate, but it has meant a delay in referring Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
5. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that are more than 12 months after the complainant first had knowledge of the problem, unless there are good reasons to do so (see paragraph ten).
6. In this case, it was agreed to refer this complaint to the Ombudsman in order to avoid any further delays. Therefore, I have decided there are good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion and investigate this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
10. 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)
11. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
12. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
13. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
14. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.
16. I have considered the relevant statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s social care complaints

Stages of the complaints process

17. The government published statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, which sets out a three-stage procedure that councils follow when considering certain complaints about children’s social care services.
18. At stage one, the council considers the complaint and should try and resolve the complaint as quickly as possible. The council should also try and agree a way forward with the complainant.
19. At stage two, the council appoints an independent Investigating Officer to investigate the complaint, and an Independent Person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Both will complete a report.
20. The guidance says consideration of the complaint at stage two should be fair, thorough and transparent with clear and logical outcomes. It says the Investigating Officer’s report should detail findings, conclusions and outcomes against each point of the complaint. Also, the report should give recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant, as appropriate.
21. After this, the council will appoint a senior manager to adjudicate on the findings. The purpose of this is for the council to consider the reports and identify its response, its decision on each point of the complaint, and any action to be taken with timescales for implementation.
22. The complainant can then ask the council to convene an independent review panel. This forms the third stage of the complaints procedure. The review panel will consider the adequacy of the independent stage two investigation.
23. After a stage two adjudication, a complaint can be further considered by early referral to the Ombudsman in a limited number of cases, instead of a stage three review panel. Certain criteria need to be met in order to do this.
24. If a council has investigated something under this statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless he considers that the investigation was flawed.

Timescales for the complaints process

25. The guidance sets out timescales within which certain actions should be completed. This also says that councils should consider mediation and conflict resolution at all stages.
26. The guidance says that once a complaint is made, the council should make an initial attempt to resolve matters within ten working days, unless an extension is agreed. The guidance says the maximum time a stage one should take is 20 working days. After this deadline, a complainant can ask for the complaint to be dealt with at stage two.
27. The guidance says that a council has 25 working days to produce the Investigating Officer’s report and its own adjudication on the Investigating Officer’s findings.
28. The guidance says this can be extended to 65 working days because in certain circumstances 25 working days may not be sufficient or practical.

What happened

29. Miss X has a daughter (D) with her ex-partner, Mr F. In early 2017, the Council received a safeguarding referral for D. The Council did an investigation, the case went to a child protection conference and D was put on a child protection plan.
30. In May 2017, Miss X complained to the Council. In June, the Council told Miss X it could not progress her complaint because of ongoing court proceedings about D in the family court.
31. Miss X met with the Council in April and May 2018 and discussed her complaint.
32. Later in May, there was a final court hearing where D was made subject to a care order to live with Mr F.
33. In July, Miss X met with the Council to discuss her complaint.
34. In September, the Council referred the complaint to an Investigating Officer (IO). The complaint was accepted by the IO in October. Also in October, the IO met with Miss X. Miss X agreed a statement of her complaint with the IO in November.
35. The IO submitted his report in January 2019. He upheld two of Miss X’s nine points of complaint. For one of these complaints, he found that the Council had not done a schedule of expectations, which the court (in May 2018) said should have been served to the court by 21 May 2018.
36. The IO found that the Council had not held monthly meetings with Miss X to update her about D. He said the Council had agreed to this in court.
37. The IO acknowledged that court orders had been breached but said this did not cause an injustice to Miss X. However, he said that Miss X had, on a regular basis, not received the service she had been promised by the Council.
38. For the other complaint the IO upheld, he found that one meeting the Council had planned with Miss X did not go ahead. He said this was unfortunate, but Miss X did meet with the Council shortly after this. He noted that the Council had apologised for this.
39. The IO said that although the Council had met with Miss X three times about her complaint, these meetings made very little progress to resolve it. He found that while informal attempts to resolve complaints have their place, in this case it would have been better for the Council to have offered to move Miss X’s complaint to stage two when the court proceedings had finished.
40. The IO made two recommendations. Firstly, when agreeing levels of communication with parents whose child is not living with them, managers need to be realistic. They should seek to achieve a balance between parental aspirations and targets which social workers can reasonably achieve.
41. Secondly, the IO noted that Miss X’s complaint was put on hold for 12 months because of court proceedings. He recommended that where proceedings are lengthy, a prompt response is desirable so that the complaint can move to stage two without delay, if the complainant wishes.
42. The IO advised the Council to carefully consider if a complex complaint is likely to be resolved by one or more informal meetings with managers. He said the Council should try and avoid unnecessary delays in progressing complaints.
43. The Independent Person (IP) submitted his report the following day. He agreed with the IO’s report and findings.
44. The Council sent its stage two adjudication in February 2019. It agreed with the IO and IP that seven of Miss X’s nine complaints were not upheld, and two were upheld.
45. The Council noted that it had already apologised for some of the communication breakdown with Miss X. It apologised for not communicating as it had agreed to. It said that the complaints process had not progressed as it should have.
46. The Council agreed with the IO that it would have been more appropriate to offer to move Miss X’s complaint to stage two after the court proceedings. It apologised for this.
47. The Council apologised that Miss X experienced a lower standard of service than it would normally expect. It apologised for the distress and upset this had caused.
48. Miss X then asked that her complaint be dealt with at stage three of the complaints process. The Council discussed this with the Ombudsman. It was agreed that Miss X’s complaint met the criteria to be an early referral to the Ombudsman.
49. In September 2019, during the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council wrote to Miss X. It said it had reviewed its actions since the stage two process was completed. It said it was concerned to note that it had failed to undertake the recommended actions about the upheld parts of her complaint. It apologised for the distress this caused.
50. The Council said it had discussed improvements with the management team. It said D’s new social worker would visit Miss X in the following few weeks, ahead of the next Looked After Child review, to share the review report with her. During this visit, the Council said it would discuss how Miss X can get monthly updates in future about D, what format these updates would take, and would ensure these communications are recorded on D’s case records.
51. The Council said it would make sure all staff were aware of the considerations required when agreeing contact arrangements with families.
52. The Council said it was also putting in place a system for the complaints team to monitor cases which are on hold due to court action. This would make sure they are told when a court case finishes.
53. The Council offered Miss X a payment of £250 to recognise the distress caused to her, and to acknowledge her time and trouble.

Analysis

The stage two investigation

54. When a complaint has come to the Ombudsman as an early referral, it is the Ombudsman’s role to look at the adequacy of the stage two investigation.
55. In this case, I find that the stage two investigation by the Investigating Officer (IO) was impartial, fair and balanced. I also find that it was thorough and transparent with clear and logical outcomes. This is in line with the guidance.
56. The IO’s report detailed his findings, conclusions and outcomes against each part of Miss X’s complaint. However, the guidance says that an IO should make recommendations about how to remedy any injustice caused to the complainant, as appropriate. I do not find that this happened.
57. I find that the IO did not consider whether all the faults found caused Miss X injustice. This is fault.
58. The Council’s stage two adjudication apologised for “failing to always communicate as had been agreed” and for not progressing Miss X’s complaint to stage two after the court proceedings had finished. It also apologised for the upset and distress caused.
59. I have considered whether the faults found by the IO caused Miss X injustice.
60. Regarding the schedule of expectations as ordered by the court, this is referred to in the final section of this report.
61. Regarding failing to meet with Miss X monthly to update her about D, I find this caused Miss X uncertainty, which is injustice.
62. The Council says that since the stage two investigation completed, meetings were held with Miss X in February, April and August 2019, when a new social worker was allocated to D’s case. It says that D’s previous social worker left the Council in July 2019, so it is not possible to confirm if any other meetings took place that were not recorded.
63. For this reason, I find that the fault found by the IO about the Council not holding monthly meetings with Miss X has continued. The Council accepts that there is no record of regular monthly meetings.
64. I therefore find that the injustice (the uncertainty) to Miss X has continued. The Council says it has agreed a communication plan with Miss X, and that she is happy with the plan. Miss X disagrees that this has happened. I am satisfied that the Council has agreed a communication plan with Miss X.
65. The IO found that on a regular basis Miss X did not receive the service the Council had promised her. While I find that the IO did not explicitly consider the injustice to Miss X of this fault, the Council’s stage two adjudication apologises for this and the communication failures.
66. For this reason, I find that Council’s apology (for not receiving the service and communication she was promised) is a suitable remedy for the injustice to Miss X caused by these faults.
67. The IO found that it would have been better if the Council had offered to take Miss X’s complaint to stage two after the court proceedings had finished, rather than try to resolve the complaint informally at stage one. This caused delays in the complaints process.
68. The IO did not explicitly consider the injustice to Miss X of this fault. However, the Council’s stage two adjudication apologised for the lower standard than it would expect, and for the distress and upset caused. So, I find this is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Complaint handling

69. Miss X complains that the Council did not handle her complaint in line with the statutory complaints procedure.
70. As I have said above, the Investigating Officer (IO) found that there were delays in the complaint handling process. This was because the Council did not progress Miss X’s complaint to stage two immediately after the court proceedings finished.
71. The Council apologised for this in its stage two adjudication.
72. The IO’s investigation was completed within the maximum 65-day timeframe stated in the guidance. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
73. The Council sent its stage two adjudication after 70 days. While this is beyond the maximum 65-day timeframe stated in the guidance, I do not find that five days are significant enough to constitute fault. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
74. The Council’s early referral of this complaint to the Ombudsman was in line with the guidance. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Promised help

75. Miss X complains that help the Council promised never materialised.
76. Miss X says that the Council promised to refer the family to Early Help, which supports families at an early stage. The Council says it has no record of this. Also, it says that referrals can be made to Early Help by a number of agencies or professionals.
77. I do not find the Council at fault. I have seen no evidence that the Council promised this help. Furthermore, any referral to Early Help was superseded by the safeguarding investigation and child protection procedures that took place in 2017.
78. Miss X says there has been no behaviour modification for Mr F. I do not agree with Miss X. The Investigating Officer’s (IO) report details the work that has been done with Mr F. For this reason, I do not find fault.
79. Miss X complains that D has never engaged with the NSPCC. I do not agree. This is detailed in the IO’s report. There is evidence that D has worked with the NSPCC. In any event, even if D had not engaged with the NSPCC, this would not be evidence of fault with the Council.

Time taken to facilitate contact with D

80. Miss X complains that the Council took ten weeks to facilitate contact between her and D, when D was living with Mr F.
81. The Investigating Officer’s (IO) report addresses this. The IO found that it was D’s wish not to have contact with Miss X during this time. Also, the IO found that it was the Council who persuaded D to have contact with Miss X.
82. For these reasons, I agree with the IO: I do not find the Council at fault.

Social worker leaving

83. Miss X complains that the Council did not tell her that one of D’s social workers was leaving.
84. During the court hearing, all parties were informed that D’s then-social worker would be leaving. This is shown in the related court papers. There was then a handover between D’s then-social worker and her next social worker.
85. I do not find the Council at fault because I find that Miss X already knew that the social worker would be leaving.

Council labelling Miss X as the only parent at fault

86. Miss X complains the Council has labelled her as the only parent at fault.
87. I do not agree with Miss X. The Investigating Officer’s (IO) report clearly says that both Miss X and Mr F have contributed to the emotional harm to D through many years of parental conflict. Miss X agreed to this in court.
88. I have seen no evidence that the Council labelled Miss X in any way. I have seen that the Council identified issues with both Miss X’s and Mr F’s parenting styles, and took action to address this.
89. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.

Safety agreement

90. Miss X complains that there is no safety agreement for D.
91. I find that there was a safety agreement in place. However, there is no record of D’s social worker informing Miss X about it. This is fault.
92. It is my view that this forms part of the poor communication that the Council has accepted. The Council apologised to Miss X for its poor communication in its letter of September 2019.
93. Further to this, the Council says the safety plan was discussed with Miss X in October 2019. It says Miss X did not feel the need for a safety plan at this time. This was confirmed by the Council to Miss X in writing in November 2019.
94. I am satisfied that the Council has taken action to address the injustice arising from this fault.

Agreed action

95. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to write to Miss X to apologise for the uncertainty caused by failing to have monthly meetings with her.
96. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that this has been completed.
97. In September 2019, the Council sent Miss X a further letter of apology. It offered Miss X a payment of £250 to recognise the distress the faults had caused and her time and trouble. It is for Miss X to decide if she is willing to accept this payment. The Council has confirmed that this offer remains open to Miss X.
98. I am satisfied that the Council has remedied the injustice caused by the other faults identified above.
99. I am also satisfied that the Council has properly acted on the recommendations made by the Investigating Officer, referred to in paragraphs 40 and 41.

Back to top

Final decision

100. I have completed my investigation and I uphold Miss X’s complaint on the basis that I have found fault causing injustice. I find that, on the whole, the Council has remedied the injustice caused by the faults. However, the Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused by failing to have monthly meetings with Miss X to update her on D’s progress.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

Breach of court order

101. As I have said in paragraph 11, we cannot investigate what happens in court. This means that I cannot investigate whether a court order has been breached.
102. The Investigating Officer suggested that the court order had been breached by the Council failing to file a schedule of expectations by May 2018. The court order itself says that if any party believes the order has been breached, they should report it immediately to the court.
103. If Miss X believes the order has been breached, then the option remains open to her to inform the court. Miss X says she has written to the court. This is the appropriate action for her to take.

Court-ordered apology

104. Miss X complains that the apology ordered by the court in February 2018 was sent to Mr F, not her.
105. The Council says it sent the apology to both Mr F and Miss X in February 2018, as the court directed. It says it sent the apology to Miss X’s home address. However, it says the wording of the letter had not been correctly amended, so it appeared the apology had only been sent to Mr F.
106. As I have said above, if Miss X believes the Council has not done something it was ordered to do by the court, she is able to complain to the court about this. It is not something the Ombudsman can make a finding on as it is outside our jurisdiction.

Contact with the Independent Reviewing Officer

107. Miss X complains that she has had no contact from the new Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) involved with D.
108. This was not part of Miss X’s complaint to the Council, which was reviewed at stage two by the Investigating Officer (IO). This means the Council has not had an opportunity to answer this part of Miss X’s complaint. For this reason, this part of Miss X’s complaint is premature, so I am not able to investigate it.
109. Further to this, the Council tells me that Miss X has made a separate complaint to the IRO Service. It is therefore my view that the Council will have an opportunity to address this part of Miss X’s complaint.
110. If Miss X is not satisfied with the Council’s response to this separate complaint about the IROs, she will be able to complain to the Ombudsman.

Requested amendments to reports

111. Miss X complains that requested amendments to reports are still outstanding.
112. As I have said in paragraph 12, the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to deal with complaints of this nature. I see no good reason for the Ombudsman to investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint.

Religious discrimination

113. Miss X claims the Council has discriminated against her on the grounds of her religion.
114. As I have said in paragraph 13, the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court unless we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court.
115. In this case, I see no good reasons why Miss X could not be expected to go to court about this part of her complaint. For this reason, I will not investigate this part of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman