Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to deal properly with concerns he raised about the welfare of his grandchildren and failed to deal properly with his complaint about this matter. The Council did follow up his concerns but there was some delay, and there was fault in the complaint handling. The Council has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council:
1. failed to deal properly with his safeguarding referrals about his grandchildren in June 2018; and
2. failed to deal properly with his complaint about this matter.

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 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, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I shared my draft decision with the Council and Mr X and considered their comments before issuing the final decision.
6. 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

What I found

Councils’ duties towards children

7. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child's needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
8. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. These duties are set out in Statutory Guidance 'Working together to safeguard children'. When a council children's social care service receives a referral about a child who may be at risk of significant harm it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. This will include determining whether:
• the child needs immediate protection and urgent action is required;
• the child is in need, and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989;
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, and enquiries must be made and the child assessed under section 47 of the Children Act 1989;
• any services are required by the child and family and what type of services;
• further specialist assessments are required to help the authority decide what further action to take;
• no further action is required.
10. The Council has identified four levels of need that it uses to decide what action it needs to take.
• Level 1 – where children have no extra needs or need are being met through universal services such as schools, nurseries or GPs.
• Level 2 – where children have extra needs that can be met through universal services providing extra support or other services such as Speech and Language Therapy.
• Level 3 – ‘targeted support’ - where there are complex or growing needs that can only be met by a co-ordinated multi-agency plan which will consider whether there is a need for specialist services.
• Level 4 – where statutory intervention is necessary as the child is a child in need under section 17 or a child in need of protection under section 47.

Statutory children’s social care complaints procedure

11. 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 Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP), who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. The IO should produce a report at the end of the investigation setting out the findings and any recommendations. The Council should send this to the complainant. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review by a Review Panel.
12. The Government has provided guidance for local authorities, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, on the operation of the complaints procedure. This sets out who may complain under the procedure. It covers complaints made by or on behalf of children and young people, and complaints from certain carers formally looking after them, such as foster carers.
13. Councils may also consider complaints under this process where they relate to a child or young person but the complainant is not acting on their behalf. In these cases the council needs to consider whether the person making the complaint “has sufficient interest in the child’s welfare” to justify using the procedure. The guidance advises that where possible the council may wish to check with the child whether they are happy for the person to make the complaint.
14. Under the statutory procedure the following timescales (in working days) apply:
• 10 days at Stage 1 (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints);
• 25 days at Stage 2 (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to request a Review Panel;
• 30 days to convene and hold the Review Panel at Stage 3;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the local authority to respond to the findings.

What happened

15. Mr and Mrs X have four grandchildren, referred to here as C1, C2, C3 and C4. Mr and Mrs X have had concerns for some years about the care their daughter, Ms M, provides to the children. In 2018 there were private family law proceedings, which included an application by Mr and Mrs X to resume contact with the two middle children, C2 and C3, that had been granted previously. Ms M had stopped the contact. She opposed the application.
16. While the legal proceedings were continuing Mr and Mrs X raised concerns with the Council about the welfare of the children. In mid-June 2018 Mrs X telephoned Children’s Services and raised the following concerns:
• Ms M’s partner, Mr G, had used threats of violence towards the two oldest grandchildren, C1 and C2, while they were on holiday abroad recently;
• Mr G had been involved in incidents with firearms in the past;
• Ms M had thrown C1, then aged 15, out of the house and he was now living with his uncle, Mr and Mrs X’s son;
• Ms M swore and shouted at the children and was emotionally abusive, and C1 had a video recording of this;
• Ms M left C2, then aged 13, alone in the house regularly over the weekend;
• Ms M had stopped the children having contact with Mr and Mrs X.
17. Mr X also wrote to the Council on 16 June 2018 raising similar concerns about Ms M being in an unsuitable relationship with Mr G, the firearms incident, ill-treatment and neglect of the children by Ms M, and C1 being thrown out of home. He asked the Council to arrange to view the video recording C1 had made.
18. The Council acknowledged receipt of the letter and said it would investigate the issues raised and respond as soon as possible.
19. Shortly afterwards the Council also received an anonymous referral with concerns about the family.
20. The Council considered the concerns as a safeguarding referral. A social worker carried out checks with the children’s schools, the police and health services. She also spoke to Ms M, C1, and the aunt who was looking after C1, exploring all the allegations. The Council decided there was “no evidence to support the allegations made, partner agencies have not raised any concerns”. The police did not have Mr G recorded as a risk to children. However the Council was concerned about “the impact the acrimonious relationship between the adults are having on the children”. Also, Ms M was asking for support with one area of C1’s behaviour.
21. The Council decided to offer ‘level 3’ targeted help to the family through working with the children on their wishes and feelings. It also agreed to offer C1 support from a Family Support Worker if he wished, and an opportunity to show the video recording. But the Council did not consider the case met the threshold for a child protection investigation or for providing services to children in need. The social worker informed Mr and Mrs X of outcome.
22. At that point Mr and Mrs X were seeing C1 at their son’s house and C2 at C2’s father’s home when he had contact.
23. In July 2018 Mr X wrote to the Council again, referring to his previous letter in June. He said he was not satisfied with the way the social worker had dealt with the concerns he had raised. He repeated his concerns and said it was important for the social worker to view C1’s video. He said the social worker had told his daughter-in-law she would visit to see the video but she had not come.
24. Mrs X called the social worker the following day to ask when someone would be coming to view the video. Mr X also called the Council and spoke to a Safeguarding Officer. He raised his concerns about risks to the children again and said he would be sending in another complaint.
25. Towards the end of July, when the Family Support Worker had returned from leave, he telephoned Mr X and explained his role and the work he could do with the family. He explained he could only provide support to the family if Ms M agreed as the Council was not treating it as a safeguarding case.
26. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint on 25 July 2018. It said as he did not have parental responsibility for the children it would not be able to share information with him about any services offered to Ms M and her children. It said the complaints procedure would look at whether the Council had dealt with his safeguarding referral appropriately in line with procedures. It said it would respond to his complaint at stage 1.
27. Shortly afterwards the Family Support Worker wrote to Mr X to say the Council would be withdrawing its service from the family as they had declined support.
28. Mr and Mrs X contacted the Family Support Worker to express their concern at this decision.
29. In early August 2018 Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council again to ask if it could provide financial support to their son and daughter-in-law who were looking after C1. The Council considered the request. It decided as it was a private family arrangement for C1 to live with his uncle, it was unlikely the Council would provide financial assistance. But it said if the uncle was struggling and the arrangement was at risk of breaking down he should contact the Council directly and it would assess the situation. As it had no safeguarding concerns it decided to close the case.
30. Around the same time Mr X wrote to the Council again, with a copy to the judge in the family proceedings, saying the Council was ignoring his concerns about the children. He asked again for someone to view C1’s video recording.
31. The Council replied to Mr X on 22 August 2018 after speaking to him over the telephone. The letter said it was a response to his formal stage 1 complaint. It confirmed the Council had looked into Mr and Mrs X’s concerns, and the outcome of the referral was to offer the family support through a Family Support Worker. However it explained that the family did not want support at the moment and as the Council was not offering a statutory service it could only provide support with the family’s consent. It said it had not seen anything in the case notes confirming an agreement to see C1’s video. However it advised if C1 wished to show it to the Safeguarding Officer, Mr X could contact her to arrange a time. Finally the Council advised Mr X that if he was not satisfied with the response he could ask to go to stage 2 of the complaints process if he contacted the Council within 20 days.
32. On 28 August 2018 Mr X wrote to the Council asking to go to stage 2. He referred to the original concerns he had raised in June and the failure to view C1’s video recording which he said the Council had promised to do. He also complained about delays in responding to his complaint.
33. The Council replied on 21 September 2018. It recognised that the stage 1 complaint response was late and apologised for this. It repeated its explanation that it had looked into his concerns and offered support to the family but could not insist on providing it without their consent. The Council said it could not share any more information with him because it was confidential. For that reason it said there was nothing further a stage 2 investigation could add.
34. Mr X wrote to the Council on 8 October 2018 asking for a stage 3 Review Panel to consider his complaint as he was not satisfied with the way the Council had dealt with it at stages 1 and 2. He said the Safeguarding Officer had now seen C1 and viewed the video recording. But he said this was over two months ago and she had not contacted him since. C1 also signed the letter to say he wanted a response about the video. Mr X raised other issues regarding the Council’s role in the family law proceedings.
35. The Council replied on 25 October in a letter headed ‘Statutory Complaint’. It explained that if C1 wished to complain about the service the Council provided to him he could do so himself or he could give written consent for Mr X to complain on his behalf. The Council explained the limits to the remit of a stage 3 Review Panel. It said the Council had already investigated the complaints at stage 1 and 2 and a stage 3 Panel would not be able to provide any more information than he had already received because it would be confidential. It said other matters he raised would also be outside the remit of the Panel as they were about the private law proceedings. It referred to the meeting with C1 to view the video. It said the officer was not able to access the video when C1 tried to show it to her. There had been further correspondence between them about how C1 could send the video electronically but he had not done so. This meant the officer had still not been able to see it. The letter ended by saying the Council would be prepared to organise a Review Panel but was concerned it would not satisfy him. It offered to refer the matter to the Ombudsman without going to stage 3.
36. Mr X confirmed he wanted to go to stage 3. The Council replied referring to a telephone call with Mr X where it confirmed arrangements were already in hand for a Panel hearing. It said it the previous letter had simply been explaining the limits on the Panel’s remit.
37. Mr X also sent in a further stage 1 complaint about the content of court reports and the behaviour of certain officers, which the Council acknowledged. There was continued correspondence about these issues over the next few months.
38. In November 2018 Mr X had a telephone conversation with an officer in the Council’s Democratic Services following which the Council wrote to him to say it had cancelled the hearing arranged for early December. It said this was because he had told the Council he no longer wished to progress to stage 3. On receiving the letter, Mr X telephoned the Council to protest, denying he had said this. The Council says it offered to reinstate the hearing but Mr X declined.
39. The Council wrote to Mr X again following the conversation. It said there seemed to have been some misunderstanding about what he had been asking for. It now understood he was asking the Council to defer the Review Panel indefinitely while he dealt with his request for Council records and that he may want to bring up issues arising from that request. The Council said the law did not allow for an ‘indefinite deferment’. It also explained the Panel could not consider new issues. It could only consider the complaint about the process followed for the safeguarding referral he made “which has been considered at stage 2”.
40. In early January 2019 Mr X wrote to the Council with a further stage 1 complaint about the cancellation of the stage 3 Review Panel. He made separate complaints about other matters as well.
41. As part of the continuing correspondence about his other complaints the Council wrote to Mr X on 13 February 2019. The letter ended by saying the Council was “not aware of any other outstanding complaints which still require a response as your original safeguarding concerns were responded to”.
42. The Council responded to the complaint about cancellation of the Review Panel on 19 February setting out what had happened with his request. It did not uphold the complaint. It said following the misunderstanding about whether he wanted to defer indefinitely or cancel the Panel, it had offered to reinstate it but he had declined. The letter advised him that if he was not satisfied with the response he could ask to go to stage 2 of the Council’s corporate complaints procedure.
43. Mr X replied complaining that the Council had failed to follow its own complaints process properly.
44. At the end of April 2019 Mr X had a meeting with the Council’s Chief Executive to discuss his concerns about his grandchildren and his complaints. In mid-May an Assistant Director (AD) in Children’s Social Care wrote to Mr X to explain what the Council would do next. She felt the long correspondence about communications and complaints had clouded the key issue Mr X had wanted to raise. This was his concerns about the welfare and safety of his grandchildren. The Council said this was “a reasonable request”. The Council would now seek an update on the position by carrying out checks, including making direct contact with the children and their carers. The AD said she had asked a senior member of staff to carry out this work and complete it by 24 May.
45. The AD wrote to Mr X again on 17 June 2019 to say staff had carried out agency checks for C1 and C2, which had come back with no concerns for their welfare. She said staff had not yet managed to make direct contact with the children and was waiting to hear about a convenient time for a visit. She also recognised Mr X’s frustration with the complaints process and apologised that she had not yet managed to complete the review of all the correspondence. She said she aimed to get a final response to Mr X by 28 June 2019.
46. Mr X replied expressing his dissatisfaction and asking for a meeting with the AD.
47. The work on the welfare checks continued, with the social worker speaking to Ms M, C1, and his college.
48. Mr X had two meetings with the AD and some further correspondence. After a further letter from Mr X complaining about lack of action and failure to meet promised timescales, the AD provided a final response on 11 November 2019. She reviewed the history of children’s social care involvement with the family dating back to 2015. She referred to a social work assessment started in mid-2018 and completed in January 2019 following another safeguarding referral in relation to C1 and his father’s partner. She provided information about C1’s wishes at the time and his living arrangements. She explained that a management decision was taken in January 2019 to close the case as the Council considered C1 had enough support around him and he had made it clear he did not wish to engage with Children’s Social Care services. There were no safeguarding concerns about the younger children. However the AD noted she would have liked to see a home visit to C1 where he was living with his girlfriend’s family, to discuss his welfare with her parents.
49. The AD then provided an update on the recent work the Council had done. She said there had been a multi-agency professionals meeting in September 2019 to share the information obtained through the welfare checks. There were no concerns raised about the three youngest children. She noted that the family had now moved abroad and C1 had moved with them. She said C1 was now 16 and could make his own decisions and choices. She advised Mr X that C1 knew how to contact family members if he wished.
50. The AD recognised that it had taken longer to complete the work than expected. This was partly because the family went away over the summer, which Mr X had been aware of, Ms M’s lack of engagement, and the AD’s own workload. But she said she believed the Council did not delay confirming the result of the safeguarding checks on the children.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

Responding to safeguarding concerns about the grandchildren

51. When Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council with their concerns in June 2018, the Council investigated them. I consider it did so properly, carrying out appropriate agency checks and speaking to family members. It analysed the information and made a management decision to offer support at level 3, ‘targeted services’. As I do not find fault in the way the Council arrived at the decision I have no power to question the decision itself. Having offered support at level 3, rather than treating the case as a child protection or child in need matter, the Council was correct to tell Mr and Mrs X that it could not impose services on the family when they declined further support.
52. There is evidence that Mr X raised the question of C1’s video recording several times and asked the Council to arrange to view it. The Council decided to offer C1 the opportunity to show it when it considered the referral in June 2018. Mr X also says the Council confirmed it would come and view it, but the Council said it had no evidence in its records of doing so. I have not seen any evidence in the records that the Council offered to view it and I cannot make a finding on this point. But neither have I seen evidence that the Council offered C1 a chance to show it as it said it would, until the meeting with the Safeguarding Officer which I understand took place in around August 2018 after Mr X had been complaining for some time. As the Council has not provided evidence that it asked C1 to show the video before this date, I consider this to be fault on its part. However I cannot say it would have made a difference to the Council’s decision to offer level 3 services if it had done so.
53. When Mr X contacted the Council again in August 2018 asking for financial support for his son in looking after C1, my view is it responded appropriately. It did not see immediate grounds to offer financial support, but advised Mr X that his son could contact the Council directly if he wished to discuss the matter himself.
54. The Council responded to the further safeguarding referral about C1 in August 2018 and investigated it. Mr X did not make this referral and so the Council did not have to respond to him about it.
55. When the Council became involved again at senior officer level in May 2019 through responding to Mr X’s complaint, it carried out appropriate checks. However there was delay in completing the work and informing Mr X of the outcome. The Council satisfied itself that the children were not at risk of significant harm. I could not say there would have been any different outcome if the Council had completed its assessment of the situation earlier. But the delay caused anxiety for Mr X.

Complaint handling

56. I consider there were several faults in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. The Council has already accepted there was delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1. Mr X made his complaint on 16 June 2018 and wrote again on 6 August. If the Council was treating it as a complaint under the statutory children’s social care procedure it should have responded in ten working days. Mr X received the response on 22 August, which is 48 working days. Allowing two days for the Council to receive the letter by post, this is still a considerable delay. The Council has apologised for this.
57. The Council did not have to consider the complaint under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. The complaint was about the children, but Mr X was not complaining on their behalf. He therefore did not have an automatic right to use the statutory process. It was a matter for the Council’s discretion. The Council has confirmed that it was treating the complaint as made under the statutory procedure. Once a council has decided to use this process, it should follow the statutory guidance. In this case I consider it failed to follow the process properly and gave Mr X confusing messages about it.
58. When Mr X asked to go to stage 2 on 28 August 2018 the Council declined. Yet when he replied in October 2018 asking for a stage 3 Review Panel the Council refused, saying it had already carried out a stage 1 and 2 investigation, and a Review Panel could not anything further. If there was a stage 2 investigation it did not follow the proper process. The Council did not tell Mr X it had appointed an Investigating Officer, tell him the timescale for the investigation, appoint an Independent Person or send him the Investigating Officer’s stage 2 report.
59. After telling Mr X initially it would not take the complaint about the safeguarding concerns to stage 2, the Council did in fact provide Mr X with a detailed response to the complaint, but not until November 2019. It decided his request to find out more about how the Council had dealt with his concerns was ‘reasonable’. By this time the complaint had expanded into a number of other areas. The Council has confirmed that this response was provided outside the complaints procedure.
60. There was confusion around the stage 3 Review Panel, but this was not the result solely of fault by the Council. The Council understood Mr X wanted to cancel the Panel hearing, but then offered to reinstate it when Mr X clarified his position. He then declined the offer, asking for an indefinite postponement, which was not possible, and seeking to add in new issues to the complaint. If Mr X had taken up the offer to reinstate the Review Panel in November 2018 the Panel would have looked at how the stage 2 investigation had been carried out and identified any failings then. If it had considered the stage 2 investigation and response inadequate it could have referred the matter back to the Council for a further investigation or response.
61. There were some difficulties for the Council in dealing with multiple complaints from Mr X running alongside each other. Nevertheless I consider that the Council’s muddled approach, delays and poor communication caused him frustration and confusion.

Agreed action

62. The Council has agreed that within one month of the decision on this complaint it will take the following steps:
• apologise to Mr X for the poor complaint handling;
• pay him £250 to recognise his frustration and confusion
63. The Council has also accepted that it failed to follow the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure properly. It has agreed that within three months it will provide a briefing to relevant staff that explains:
• when to use the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure, when to use the corporate procedure, and how to inform the complainant;
• that when it considers a complaint under the statutory procedure it must ensure it follows the statutory guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I have found there was some delay in responding to Mr X’s concerns about his grandchildren in the later stages and fault in the complaint handling. I am satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take to remedy the injustice caused and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman