Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to close a child in need plan for their grandchildren when the grandchildren’s risk of harm was increasing. Despite finding in Mr and Mrs X’s favour, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the time taken in implementing the recommendations and for not adequately recognising the impact on Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to implement the recommendations from the statutory complaints process and pay Mr and Mrs X £500 for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr and Mrs X, complain about the Council’s decision to close and child in need plan for his grandchildren. Mr and Mrs X say:
• The Council said it would take until September 2020 to update procedures and they think this is unacceptable.
• Further issues about the mother’s behaviour have happened and the Council has not addressed these.
• They do not think the panel considered their submissions properly or recorded key discussions properly.
• They are unhappy the panel has not upheld one of the heads of complaint about how a Director responded to the closure of the child in need plan.
• The Council refused to take another complaint about how a senior manager prevented them from complaining in 2013.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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, section 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. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of this investigation, I have:
• Considered the complaint received from Mr and Mrs X.
• Reviewed information received from the Council.
• Spoken to Mr X about the complaint.
• Sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

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 Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation).
9. If a complainant is unhappy with the result 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.

Background

10. Mr X and his wife Mrs X have four grandchildren aged between 4 and 13. The Council’s children’s services department have been involved with the children for many years. At the time of the complaint the children lived with their mother, Miss Y. Miss Y is also Mrs X’s daughter.
11. In September 2016 the Council placed the children on a child in need plan. This was mostly due to issues of Miss Y drinking and the suitability of her partners.
12. In August 2017 the Council told Mr and Mrs X it intended to close the child in need plan. Mr and Mrs X objected as there had been further incidents about Miss Y’s behaviour and they felt the children were still at risk. Miss Y had entered a new relationship and her drinking was becoming more problematic. Despite Mr and Mrs X’s objections, the Council decided to end the child in need plan.
13. Shortly after the child in need plan ended the Council placed the children onto a child protection plan because Miss Y suffered violent abuse from her partner.

Complaint about children’s services

14. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council after it ended the child in need plan for their grandchildren in August 2017. They also complained about the Council’s handling of the case over years. Mr and Mrs X raised issues about Miss Y’s drinking and about the suitability of relationships she had. They said these issues were still occurring and the children were still at risk.
15. The Council responded to the complaint at stage one of the statutory complaint’s procedure. The Council told Mr and Mrs X it felt the decision to end the child in need plan was correct due to the progress made by the family. This was despite the children subsequently being placed onto a child protection plan.
16. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two. They said some professionals involved with the family opposed the child in need plan closing. They also said from the documents they have seen the Council identified risks to the children but still closed the plan.
17. The stage two investigation set out 19 heads of complaint of which 15 were upheld and one partially upheld. The stage two investigation found several failings by the Council including in how it ended and handled the child in need plan. These included; ending the plan early, not consulting with the professionals involved in the case and failing to properly assess and address risk to the children.
18. The stage two investigation only looked at issues in the last 12 months preceding the complaint. The Investigating Officer considered not much would be gained by looking back further than 12 months. They said there were now different procedures and staff at the Council and some of the issues were similar to the current complaint.
19. The Council’s stage two recommendations were:
• To reflect on the case history, specifically about actions taken which infringe the policies and procedures about the child in need process and closure of the plan.
• To review the social worker’s work on writing meeting minutes, assessments and analysing and evaluating risk to see if these areas of practice have developed to an acceptable standard or need further training and support.
• The Child Protection Teams familiarise themselves with and consider the ‘Ten Pitfalls’ in the assessment process as identified by the NSPCC to support a more robust approach to risk analysis and evaluation.
• To provide a clear response to a referrer when they provide information to the social worker and or their team.
• To consider if complaints of a complex nature should follow the current complaints process. Or if an alternative process could be followed such as moving a complaint straight to stage two.
• To provide stage one complaint investigators with guidance and training to ensure they follow procedures and critically review key documents before making judgements about their quality.
20. The Independent Person also produced a report to say they agreed with the Investigating Officers findings. They considered the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation in a sensitive and fair manner.
21. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X accepting the recommendations from the stage two investigation. The Council also offered Mr and Mrs X £250 to recognise the faults the stage two investigation identified.
22. Mr and Mrs X were not satisfied with the Council’s response following the stage two investigation. While they were overall happy with the investigation they disputed some findings and the time frame of the complaint.
23. The stage three complaints panel met to discuss the complaint. The panel concluded:
• The Council ended the child in need plan early and without consulting the relevant partners.
• The decision to end the plan put the children at risk.
• The panel would have partially upheld the complaint about the Director’s review. The panel agreed more effort should have been made to gather the facts before writing but disagrees with any suggestion of dishonesty.
• The response the Council provided to Mr and Mrs X following the stage two was inadequate. The panel agreed systems needed to be put in place to ensure Council officers follow policies and procedures.
• The 12-month time limit placed on the complaint was correct and the panel agreed the investigation could address all significant issues by focusing on this time period.
24. The stage three panel supported the decision of the stage two investigation.

The Council’s remedies

25. At stage three the panel recommended the Council develop a management plan to address the issues raised in the complaint. The plan should address the following:
• Decisions to end child in need plans should only be taken with consultation with core group members.
• The Council will change its procedures so a decision to end a child in need plan will be discussed fully at a partnership meeting and there are no strong objections from any partner. The manager may have the authority to close a plan but should show consultations with partners have taken place and be able to justify the decision.
• The Council will remove the arbitrary 12-month time limit on child in need plans from its procedures. There will be an evaluation of progress before closing a child in need plan.
• An Assistant Director from the Council will offer to meet with Mr and Mrs X.
• Staff must be fully aware of and implement current policies and procedures.
• There must be close managerial oversight of the performance of both the Social Worker and Practice Manager in this decision, especially about understanding/compliance with policies/procedures.
• The Council will consider its processes for quality assurance and case file auditing to ensure records are better kept and minutes of meetings better recorded.
• The Council will arrange an independent audit of the current child protection plan to find out whether it is running as it should.
26. Mr X said he met with the Assistant Director, however the Council has not implemented the action plan agreed in the stage three panel review. Mr X said he found out a senior manager at the Council had signed of the child in need plan had also prevented him from making a complaint back in 2013.
27. In January 2019 Mr X wrote to the Council to ask to make a formal complaint about this individual preventing him from complaining in 2013. The Council responded to say due to the time passed it would not consider a complaint.

Analysis

28. As stated above if a council has investigated something under the statutory complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed.
29. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X disagreed with the outcome of the stage two investigation and stage three panel and the 12 month time limit placed on the complaint, I cannot see evidence these were flawed. The Council appointed an Independent Person and Investigating Officer to conduct and oversee the investigation. From the Investigating Officer’s report, I note they carefully addressed each point in the heads of complaint. The Independent Person also confirmed they were satisfied with the way the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation. Following this the complaint was reviewed by a stage three panel.
30. Although the stage three panel shared Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about one complaint which was not upheld, the panel endorsed the decisions taken in the stage two investigation. This does not mean the stage two investigation was flawed. I see no need to reinvestigate the original complaint given the standard of investigation that has already been conducted.
31. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council not implementing the recommendations of the stage three panel. I have not seen evidence the recommendations were implemented by the Council. By not implementing these the Council has not taken steps to remedy the faults identified by the statutory complaints procedure.
32. I acknowledge the Council was willing to offer a financial payment to Mr and Mrs X of £250 to remedy the faults identified in their complaint. I am satisfied that by ending the child in need plan early despite there still being known risk to the children caused Mr and Mrs X distress. They were clearly worried about the safety and wellbeing of their grandchildren. The fact that after the child in need plan ended the children were placed onto a child protection plan would have added to the distress suffered by Mr and Mrs X.
33. An injustice such as distress is difficult to remedy, so we often seek a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of fault on a complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance says that any remedy should reflect the circumstances of the case, including the severity of the distress and the length of time involved. It says payments are often between £100 and £300 but in severe circumstances can be as high as £1000.
34. Having considered the distress identified in this case, I consider the distress Mr and Mrs X suffered was severe enough to warrant a higher payment than £300 and have therefore concluded a payment of £500 would be a sufficient remedy.
35. Mr X also complained the Council chose not to investigate a complaint he made about a senior manager preventing him from complaining back in 2013, due the time elapsed. I have not found fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate this. While I understand Mr X became aware the same manager who stopped him complaining in 2013 reviewed the closure of the child in need plan, I see no reason why Mr X could not have complained to the Ombudsman about the closure of his complaint in 2013 at the time.

Agreed action

36. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Implement the recommendations set out in the stage three panel report.
• Pay Mr and Mrs X £500 for the distress suffered.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

38. I have not investigated how the Council responded to further incidents concerning Miss Y’s behaviour after the conclusion of the complaints procedure. Mr X would need to raise these as a formal complaint with the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman