Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not implemented recommendations that were made at stage two and three of the statutory complaint procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council considered the recommendations. We have recommended the Council reconsider its decision and make a financial payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X’s complaint was investigated at stage two and three of the statutory complaint procedure. Some of her complaints were upheld and recommendations were made at both stage two and three. Miss X complains the Council has not implemented these recommendations. Miss X also complains the Council has not explained why it will not offer her compensation for the faults identified.

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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Section 7 reports are produce in private law child arrangement proceedings. A court can order a council to provide the section 7 report. As a court has ordered the section 7 report, their preparation and content are outside our jurisdiction (Schedule 5(1) Local Government Act 1974)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I sent a draft decision to Miss X and the Council 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. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Guidance on Remedies

11. The Ombudsman has published a guidance on remedies. It notes that we can recommend a financial payment as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress or difficulties complainants have been put through. It states that our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might.
12. The Ombudsman can recommend a remedy for distress. However, the guidance is clear that it must be avoidable distress arising from fault.
13. Our recommendation for a remedy needs to reflect all the circumstances, including the severity of the distress.
14. The guidance sets out that a remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1000 may be justified.

What happened

15. Miss X has a daughter, A, who lives with her. Miss X is separated from A’s father. A has contact with her father.
16. Miss X has raised several safeguarding concerns about A’s father, following disclosures by A. Miss X complained the Council had not taken the safeguarding concerns seriously and had not responded to the concerns appropriately.
17. Miss X also complained about the content of a section 7 report prepared by the Council for court proceedings. Miss X felt the report was not thorough and excluded key information in relation to the events that had taken place.
18. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaints at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure. A total of 37 complaints were considered by the stage two investigator. 17 were upheld, two partially upheld, and two undecided. The stage two investigation was not completed within the statutory timescale of 65 days. It was noted in the stage report the delay was due to the social worker not being available for interview.
19. In the Council’s stage two adjudication letter, the Council accepted most of the findings of the stage two investigation. The Council did not uphold the two undecided complaints and did not uphold one upheld complaint.
20. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s findings and asked it to consider her complaint at stage three.
21. The stage three panel considered the three complaints which the Council did not uphold. The stage three panel upheld all three complaints.
22. Out of all the upheld and partially upheld complaints, only nine were about matters not relating to the section 7 report to court. The nine upheld complaints are summarised as follows:

• The Council did not provide updates regarding the safeguarding concerns Miss X made.
• The Council did not take sufficient steps to investigate the disclosure about an incident because the Council did not speak to A about the incident.
• The Council described Miss X as anxious in front of A without justification.
• The social worker failed to respond to Miss X regarding a safeguarding concern.
• There was poor communication with Miss X by the social worker.
• The Council had warned Miss X not to make any further referrals.
• Following a concern about A being locked in her room, the social worker did not check whether there was a lock on the child’s bedroom door when they visited the property.
• There was poor communication with Miss X by the Council about the purpose of a meeting.
• The Council had advised A’s father to seek full time custody despite the concerns reported.

23. The stage three panel noted Miss X’s desired outcomes. These were:

• An appropriate apology – the panel noted that Miss X had accepted the verbal apology provided by the Council at the panel meeting.
• The Council to tell the school and GP surgery of the outcome of the stage two investigation – the panel noted its view the Council could consider producing a brief position statement in relation to the overall outcome of the stage two investigation. The statement would include the number of complaints made and the final outcomes (upheld, not upheld).
• The Council to correct/update case records to reflect the findings of the stage two investigation – the panel noted the Council had agreed to put an alert on the case file records which would direct readers to information relating to the complaint.
• Compensation – the panel noted its view the Council should consider compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. The panel also noted the Council should provide Miss X with information about whether she could make a claim against the Council’s insurance.

24. In its stage three adjudication letter, the Council accepted the findings of the stage three panel. The Council said it would not be offering Miss X any compensation. The Council did not provide a reason for this. The Council also did not provide any information about whether Miss X could make a claim against its insurance.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not agree with the findings at stage two and it was not bound to accept any of the recommendations made at stage two. The Council also said Miss X should make her claim and the Council will pass it to its insurers. The Council did not provide any further information as to how Miss X should make her claim.
26. The Council explained it did not prepare a written statement for the school and GP surgery because the judge did not exclude either parent from their parental role at court. The Council said on this basis, it would not be appropriate to send the recommended letter as it might confuse the process and undermine safeguarding.
27. The Council confirmed it had created an alert on A’s case files which advises case workers to read the stage two and three investigation reports.

Analysis

28. I have reviewed the stage two report and stage three review. I am satisfied the stage two investigation was robust and considered relevant information. Equally, I am satisfied with the way the stage three review was conducted. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to rely on the findings reached at stage two and three and I have not reinvestigated the matters.

Financial payment and insurance claim

29. The stage three panel noted the Council should consider compensation. The Council has said it will not offer any compensation. The Council said this was because it did not agree with the stage two findings.
30. However, the Council agreed with most of the stage two findings in its adjudication letter. It would be reasonable to expect the Council to object to the findings at that stage if it did not agree with them. The fact the Council did object and made alternative findings on three complaints shows it was aware it could disagree with the findings.
31. Further, the Council did not challenge the findings made by the stage three review. It would be reasonable to expect the Council to object during the adjudication stage. The fact it did not suggests it accepted the views of the panel, including that it should consider a financial remedy.
32. There is no evidence the Council has considered what injustice the faults identified may have caused to Miss X. The Council has also not explained why a financial remedy would not be appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, the evidence suggests the Council has not properly considered the issue. At this stage, I consider this fault which caused Miss X an injustice. This is because she is uncertain of the reasons for the Council rejecting a financial payment.
33. The stage three panel also stated the Council should provide Miss X with information about whether she could make a claim on the Council’s insurance. The Council has not provided this information and has only said if Miss X wishes to make a claim, she should do so. Therefore, the evidence suggests the Council has not completed this remedy. The Council has not provided any good reason for not completing the remedy and this is fault.

Statement for the school and GP surgery

34. The stage three panel asked the Council to consider producing a brief position statement about the overall outcome of the stage two investigation and stage three review. The Council said it would not be appropriate to prepare this statement because it might confuse the process and undermine safeguarding.
35. The stage three panel only suggested the Council prepare a brief position statement which would set out the details of the complaints investigated and the finding of each complaint. At this stage, I am unclear as to how sending a statement to reflect the outcome of the complaint could confuse the process and undermine safeguarding.
36. As the Council has not explained how complying with this recommendation would impact on safeguarding, I am not satisfied the Council has properly considered the matter. This is fault.

Ombudsman’s consideration of further recommendations

37. I cannot consider the impact of the faults identified related to the section 7 report to court. Therefore, I cannot recommend a remedy to put right any injustice caused to Miss X by those faults.
38. However, I can consider the faults identified which are not about the section 7 report to court, and whether they caused any injustice to Miss X. If the faults have caused an injustice, I can consider making further recommendations to remedy the injustice.
39. I am of the view the faults identified (not in relation to the section 7 report) did cause Miss X avoidable frustration and distress. Therefore, a financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:

• Reconsider whether a financial remedy is appropriate in the circumstances. The Council should set out whether it considers the faults identified, including those related to the section 7 report, caused Miss X any injustice. The Council should write to Miss X with its decision and explain its reasons for the decision.
• Provide Miss X with information about how she can make a claim against the Council’s insurance.
• Pay Miss X £300 to recognise the avoidable frustration and distress caused by the faults identified (not related to the S7 report to court) by the stage two investigation and stage three review.
• The Council has also offered to pay Miss X a further £300 as a gesture of good will.

41. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find fault with how the Council considered the recommendations made by the stage three panel. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman