Summary: the Council failed to deal with the complaint in line with the timescales in its published complaints procedure. It has already apologised to Ms D for this and has also recently revised its complaints policy and improved practice to ensure timescales are met. There is no fault by the Council in relation to the other parts of Ms D’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms D, complains about the Council's handling of a child protection investigation related to her sister in 2018. In particular she complains:
1. it failed to consider her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure, instead considering it under the corporate complaints’ procedure;
2. it took too long to respond to her complaint and did not complete a thorough investigation;
3. it has wrongly recorded that she is a client of the children's services team even though she is an adult; and
4. the social worker told her she could not return to live with her father while it was investigating the concerns even though she was an adult and also made her a subject in her sister's child protection plan.

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. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Ms D and considered the written information she provided with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
5. In considering the complaint I have taken account of evidence provided by Ms D and the Council which includes:
• copies of the complaints and the council’s responses to these;
• notes of the child protection case conference;
• social work case notes; and
• notes made by the social work manager.
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.
7. I gave the Council and Ms D the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and took account of responses received before I reached a final decision on the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. 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.
9. Statutory guidance on implementation of the statutory complaints procedure details who may complain under this procedure and what they may complain about. In summary, a child or young person or someone who holds parental responsibility for them and who complains about support provided to, for example, children in need or children who are looked after is likely to be entitled to complain under the statutory procedure. Others including foster carers, adopters and care leavers are also likely to be eligible. The guidance recognises that councils are also likely to receive complaints by adults that relate to a child or young person but are not made on the child's behalf. The guidance clarifies that “The Children Act, 1989 gives discretion to local authorities to decide in cases where eligibility is not automatic whether or not an individual has sufficient interest in the child’s welfare to justify his own complaint being considered by them. In reaching a decision, where possible the local authority may wish to check with the child or young person that he is happy with the person making a complaint”.
10. At the time of Ms D’s complaint the Council had a corporate complaints procedure which took the form of a two-stage procedure. This provided for a response within 10 working days at stage one and if escalated to stage two, a further response from a senior officer provided within 30 working days.
11. A child may be made subject to a child protection plan if a multi-agency child protection case conference decides a plan is necessary to ensure their safety and bring about improvements.

What happened

Background

12. In late 2018 Ms D’s younger sister, Y, was made subject of a child protection investigation following a disclosure she made. As part of a safety plan following the disclosure, an agreement was made for Y to live with another family member while risks were investigated and evaluated. Y was later made the subject of a child protection plan.
13. Ms D’s complaint relates to the way in which she was involved in this process. I am not considering a complaint related to or on behalf of Y.

Council’s comments on the complaint

14. Ms D complained about the way in which the social worker allocated to Y had dealt with Ms D during the investigation and said that he had misrepresented what she had said to him.
15. The Council says that it did not consider Ms D’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure as she is not a child and so not eligible to complain on her own behalf about services she has received from the service. In addition, the Council did not consider it should accept a complaint for consideration under the procedure on behalf of her younger sister as it considered her sister was able to submit a complaint on her own behalf if she wished to pursue one. The Council therefore says that it proceeded to consider Ms D’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure.
16. The Council accepts that it took too much time to respond to Ms D’s complaint at stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council took around three months to provide a response. The Council apologises for this and says the stage one response was provided promptly by a team manager but the procedure requires the stage two investigation and response is provided by a head of service and says its children’s services had limited capacity at the service manager staff level at the time of Ms D’s complaint. Ms D was unhappy that the social worker was not interviewed as part of the investigation of the complaint at stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council confirms that the social worker in question was not employed by the Council during the time that it was investigating the complaint.
17. The Council says that Ms D had been recorded as a client on its children’s services records as a result of a referral she made around three to four years ago when she was a child herself and the Council identified that she was a carer for her younger sister. The Council confirms that other than a file on Ms D in which she is identified as a client by virtue of being a “young carer” it holds no other records which identify her as a client of its children’s services team.
18. The Council is clear that Ms D was never the subject of any plans which identified her as in need of protection. It says she was identified as a person who was willing to support Y and she was also present during a social work visit to Y and the relative with who she was staying during the investigation. The Council did refer to Ms D in its notes to state that she was present and available to support Y. The Council says its notes record that Ms D decided to stay with the relative with whom Y was staying and that she decided this based on information discussed during the social work visit. The Council says its notes record this as being what would happen but that it was not a requirement from the social worker that Ms D was to stay with the relative.
19. The Council is clear that none of its staff required Ms D to move in with the relative at that time or subsequently. She did remain living with the relative later on but this was not at the request of or requirement by the children’s services team.
20. The Council says the notes of the initial child protection case conference referred to Ms D because she attended the meeting and she participated in it and in drawing up the child protection plan as did others attending the conference.
21. The Council says there is very little personal information about Ms D on Y’s file and all that is on it relates to Y including for example, a reference to Ms D having a good relationship with Y.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

22. There is no fault by the Council in its decision to not consider the matter under the statutory complaints’ procedure. A complaint by Ms D did not automatically qualify to have her complaint considered under that procedure so there are no grounds for me to conclude that its decision to consider the complaint under the corporate complaints’ procedure amounts to fault.
23. The Council did not complete its consideration within the timescales set out in the corporate procedure. The delay amounts to fault. This is because the published procedure states the deadline is 30 days. The fault caused Ms D injustice in the form of frustration. I recognise that the Council says it was short of staff to complete the stage 2 investigation but this does not detract from the fault.
24. The Council does have a case record for Ms D which relates to an earlier involvement when it records her as being a young carer (a carer under the age of 18) for her younger sister. Children’s services is required to keep its records for several years so this information is still held on its filing system. It confirms however that it has not considered Ms D a client/user of its services since then or in relation to its involvement with Y. It accepts that its records do contain references to Ms D in relation to its involvement with Y since late 2018 but this is solely in relation to Y.
25. There is no evidence that the social worker told Ms D that she could not return to live with her father while it was investigating the concerns. As she was an adult at the time it would have had no authority to do so in any case. The records show that it was Ms D that decided to go and stay with her relative and a decision on this would have been for her to make. There is no evidence to support Ms D’s understanding that she is a subject in the child protection plan: the plan relates entirely to Y though Ms D is mentioned in the notes as a contributor to the conference and included in a planned referral to a project for family work. This does not make her the subject of the plan and assumes that she wanted to support Y as she had indicated, but again this would not have been a requirement for her.

Agreed action

26. The Council has already apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 of its corporate complaints procedure and I do not consider a further apology is justified.
27. When I issued the draft decision on this complaint I recommended the Council ensure that it responds to complaints within its published timescales in future and asked it to provide me with details of the processes it has in place to ensure this. In response the Council advised that its process for investigating and responding to corporate complaints changed from October 2019. It now has a single stage corporate complaint process with a timescale of 20 working days and a further extension of 10 working days in complex cases. The Council says that in relation to children’s services complaints that do not qualify for consideration under the statutory complaints procedure, the new single stage process frees up the most appropriate staff members to respond to individual cases and heads of service will have oversight where appropriate and be able to ensure complaints are addressed promptly and satisfactorily. The Council also says that its new Deputy Director for Children’s Services is committed to timely handling of complaints and that its timings for responses to all complaints has already improved. I am therefore satisfied that it has already taken action to address the fault identified in this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council failed to deal with the complaint in line with the timescales in its published complaints procedure. I am satisfied that it has already apologised to Ms D for this and that it has already taken steps to address and improve this. There is no fault in relation to the other parts of Ms D’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman