Summary: Ms B complains about lack of support for herself and her grandchildren when they went to live with her after the Council obtained an interim care order. The Council carried out an independent investigation which found significant fault and took action to remedy the injustice caused. Ms B believes the remedy is inadequate. The Council has agreed to make additional payment.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about lack of support for herself and her grandchildren when they went to live with her after the Council obtained an interim care order. In particular, she says the Council:
• has never provided a full explanation about why it made an application to the Court when two days earlier the plan was for the children to spend Christmas with their mother;
• removed the children from their mother because Ms B raised safeguarding concerns about another child and these concerns were not actioned;
• placed the children with her despite a negative viability assessment being completed and was content for other family members to care for the children without being assessed;
• failed to properly supervise contact between the children and their parents;
• failed to provide the family with an adequate service; and
• failed to take action when a social worker pushed her out of the way outside the contact centre.
2. Ms B also complains that the service manager refused to discuss her concerns.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided including the report prepared by the investigating officer at stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
6. I have written to Ms B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. 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.

Key facts

8. In November 2017 the Council received a referral in respect of Ms B’s grandchildren. A strategy discussion took place in December 2017 and professionals decided to refer the matter to court. The Council completed an initial viability assessment (IVA) in respect of Ms B which was negative.
9. The following day the court made an interim care order (ICO) and decided to place the children in Ms B’s care despite the negative IVA. The court ordered that the children have contact with their parents supervised by the Council and made an exclusion order preventing the parents attending Ms B’s home. Ms B agreed her 12 year old son, and her daughter and grandchild who were currently living with her, would move out so her grandchildren could stay with her.
10. The children lived with Ms B for 12 months before returning to live with their mother.
11. In March 2018 Ms B made a formal complaint about the Council’s handling of the case. The Council considered the complaint through the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. It appointed an Independent Officer (IO) to consider the complaint at stage 2 of the procedure and an Independent Person (IP) to ensure the investigation was carried out properly. The IO and IP met with Ms B to discuss the complaint. They also considered relevant documents and met with officers involved in the case. The IO prepared a detailed report and upheld some of Ms B’s complaints.
12. The Council considered the IO’s report and the IP’s comments and implemented the IO’s recommendations. It also offered to pay Ms B £1600 in recognition of the injustice she suffered as a result of its failings and offered therapeutic support for her grandchildren. The Council has confirmed this offer remains open for the children and adults involved in the case. It has also now offered to pay for private counselling for Ms B with a counsellor of her choice.
13. Ms B is dissatisfied with the Council’s investigation and the remedy it has offered.

Analysis

The Council has never provided a full explanation about why it made an application to the court when two days earlier the plan was for the children to spend Christmas with their mother

14. The IO did not uphold this complaint and explained in some detail why the Council made an application to the court in December 2017.
15. The Council later arranged a meeting between Ms B, the complaints team and the supervising manager responsible for the social work team to explain why it had made an application to the court. The Council invited Ms B to input into the meeting beforehand and she put forward a list of questions. The Council provided answers before the meeting so they could be discussed at the meeting, including an explanation about why it had decided to make an application to the court.
16. I am satisfied the Council has explained why it made an application to the court. In any event, Ms B was present in court when the application was made. The Council would have been required to explain to the court the reasons for the application. The reasons would also have been set out in the documents presented to the court which Ms B would have received as she was a party to the proceedings.

The Council removed the children from their mother because Ms B raised safeguarding concerns about another child and these concerns were not actioned

17. This complaint was not upheld by the IO. There are no grounds to criticise her view. The decision to remove the children from their parents was made by the court and not the Council. The court could only make such a decision if it was satisfied the children were at risk of significant harm if they remained in their parents’ care. This decision would not have taken into account the fact that Ms B raised safeguarding concerns about another child.

The Council placed the children with Ms B despite a negative viability assessment being completed

18. The IO did not uphold this complaint. There are no grounds to criticise her view. It was the court’s decision to place the children with Ms B and not the Council’s. The Council did not support the placement of the children with Ms B because of the negative IVA but it had to comply with the court’s order.

The Council was content for other family members to care for the children without being assessed

19. The IO did not uphold this complaint. However, the Council accepts that assessments and checks were not completed to inform decisions about respite care and which family members could support Ms B with the care of her grandchildren.

The Council failed to properly supervise contact between the children and their parents

20. The IO upheld this complaint. She found the court ordered regular contact between the children and their parents and how this should take place. However, contact took place on an ad hoc basis and lacked any organised approach.
21. The Council accepts there were occasions of missed contact because of inappropriate supervision or inadequate communication about the arrangements and that this put unnecessary pressure on Ms B and created logistical problems for her in respect of the children’s schooling and transportation.

The Council failed to provide the family with an adequate service

22. The IO upheld this complaint. She found the service provided to Ms B and her family had fallen short of that to be reasonably expected where children are subject to an ICO. She found a lack of consistency of approach and continuity throughout the case and poor record management practices. She also found the Council delayed in completing parenting assessments which could have led to the children being returned to their mother soon.
23. The Council accepts there were failings in service including: failure to adequately support Ms B; frequent changes of social worker; failure to attend the looked after child review in April 2018 which meant the meeting was unable to go ahead; failure to consider Ms B’s other commitments when arranging meetings; failure to answer telephone calls; and delay in moving contact to Ms B’s property.
24. The Council also accepts there was a delay in providing financial support for Ms B although it ultimately agreed to pay travel allowance and fostering allowance and backdated the payments.

The Council failed to take action when a social worker pushed Ms B out of the way

25. The IO was unable to make a finding on this complaint. In the absence of evidence as to exactly what happened, there are no grounds to criticise this.

The service manager refused to discuss Ms B’s concerns

26. The IO did not uphold this complaint. There are no grounds to question the IO’s decision. In any event, Ms B has discussed her concerns with several other senior managers.

Conclusion

27. I find the Council’s stage 2 investigation was carried out in line with relevant guidance. The IO agreed a statement of complaint with Ms B and confirmed her desired outcomes. The investigation took account of evidence from a range of sources and addressed each of Ms B’s complaints in detail. The IO’s report was detailed and thorough. The investigation was overseen by an independent person who was content with the conclusions and outcomes.
28. There is no evidence to suggest the investigation was flawed so there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the issues. In addition, I do not consider the Ombudsman can add to the stage 2 investigation and achieve a different outcome.

Injustice

29. Ms B considers the remedy offered by the Council to be inadequate and says it does not address the impact of the Council’s failings on her family.
30. Ms B suffered a significant injustice as a result of the Council’s failings. The lack of support she received made it difficult for her to cope with the stresses of looking after her grandchildren, particularly as she had to travel a significant distance to take them to and from school and to supervised contact sessions. The delay in completing the IVAs for other family members added to this as Ms B had no respite. The Council’s delay in completing the parenting assessment meant the children had to stay with Ms B longer than necessary. In addition, her son had to move out of his home to allow Ms B’s grandchildren to live with her. He lived with his sister for nearly a year. This caused a great deal of distress to both Ms B and her son.
31. The Council paid Ms B £800 in recognition of the injustice caused by the inadequate service provided and the delays in completing assessments without which the children may have been able to return to their mother sooner and support from other family members could have been provided in the meantime.
32. The Council paid Ms B a further £500 to acknowledge her distress at her son having to leave the family home.
33. The Council also paid Ms B £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she suffered as a result of the delays in dealing with her complaint.
34. The Council has offered to pay for private counselling for Ms B with a counsellor of her choice and has offered therapeutic support for her grandchildren.
35. I consider the Council’s actions go some way towards remedying the injustice suffered by Ms B and her family, but do not go far enough. So, I have made recommendations below.

Agreed action

36. In addition to the actions already agreed by the Council, I recommend it pays Ms B a further £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the significant delay in paying fostering allowance and reimbursing her travel costs.
37. I also recommend the Council pays Ms B £500 for the benefit of her son in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he suffered as a result of having to move out of his home.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I uphold Ms B’s complaint.
39. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman