Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s involvement with her when her grandchildren were removed from their parents’ care. She also complained the Council did not meet its own timescales when responding to her complaint. We find the Council’s remedy from its statutory complaints investigation does not adequately remedy the injustice Mrs D suffered. The Council has agreed to our increased recommendation to reflect Mrs D’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained about the Council’s involvement with her when her grandchildren were removed from their parents’ care.
2. Mrs D also complained the Council did not meet its own timescales when responding to her complaint. She says the Council’s offer of £600 is appalling and it does not adequately remedy the distress, trauma, and anxiety her and her family have gone through.

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. 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 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Mrs D submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it provided in response.
8. Mrs D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

9. The Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area.
10. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 says 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.
11. These duties are set out in the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. When a local authority 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 the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. If there is, enquiries must be made, and the child should be assessed under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

12. The Children Act 1989 sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. services. At stage two of the procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review panel to be held.
13. The regulations place a duty on councils to act promptly to ensure the complaint is dealt with as quickly as possible. The Department for Education guidance, Getting the Best from Complaints says:

• The complaint should stake a maximum of 20 working days at stage one.
• The stage two investigation should take a maximum of 65 working days.
• A maximum of 30 working days may be taken to convene and hold a stage three review panel.

14. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider that the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Background

15. The Council received a referral from a local hospital with concerns about marks on Mrs D’s granddaughter. The Council held a strategy meeting on the same day.
16. The Council subsequently removed Mrs D’s grandchildren from their parents’ care.
17. Mrs D, along with other individuals, was added to a pool of possible perpetrators. This is a legal process, and the courts use it to determine who may have injured a child. Mrs D contacted her employer, and she was subsequently suspended from her job.
18. Care proceedings started and a decision was made for Mrs D to have fully supervised contact with her grandchildren.
19. A few months later, the court granted a six-month supervision order. A supervision order gives councils the legal power to monitor children’s needs and progress. Mrs D’s grandchildren returned home to their parents.

Mrs D’s complaint

20. Mrs D complained to the Council on 12 June 2019. She said the Council’s management of her case had a significant impact on her. She also said she was denied contact with her grandchildren for six weeks, the Council delayed contacting her to gain her employment information, it made no attempt to assess her as a possible perpetrator and it left a child in the care of other identified possible perpetrators.
21. The Council issued its stage one response to Mrs D’s complaint on 15 July. It said it could not comment on her concerns about the management of the case as the matter was subject to care proceedings. It also said it could not comment on Mrs D’s concerns about a child that was left in the care of other identified perpetrators because she did not have parental responsibility for the child. Finally, it said the social worker acted promptly to ensure safeguarding proceedings were followed.
22. Mrs D was unhappy with the Council’s stage one response to her complaint. She said the Council had failed to explain its decision making about why she was denied contact with her grandchildren. She said the decisions taken by the Council raised safeguarding concerns for other families. Finally, she said her physical and emotional wellbeing had been significantly impacted.
23. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent person (IP) to investigate Mrs D’s case. They met with Mrs D in August to discuss her statement of complaint. The Council agreed to investigate the following complaints:

1. It failed to explain its decision making leading up to including Mrs D in a pool of possible perpetrators.
2. It failed to assess Mrs D.
3. It failed to assess Mrs D in a timely manner.
4. It removed her from the pool of possible perpetrators on the day of the final hearing without an explanation.
5. It failed to respond to an email when she questioned why she was removed from the pool of possible perpetrators.
6. It failed to contact her employer in a timely manner.
7. It left her and other identified possible perpetrators looking after a child.
8. It failed to arrange contact with her grandchildren after she requested it.
9. It failed to provide an adequate stage one response to her complaint.

24. The Council provided Mrs D with an update on 1 October. It explained it had arranged interviews with relevant staff. It also explained it would aim to meet the 65-day target on 13 December, but it could not guarantee it. It provided Mrs D with a further update on 29 October and confirmed the investigation was still ongoing.
25. Mrs D chased the Council for an update on 22 November. It said it had sent the draft report out to staff for factual accuracy errors, and it would shortly send it to her.
26. The Council sent Mrs D the draft report on 4 December. She provided her feedback to the Council on 10 December.
27. The IO completed the final report on 13 December. She upheld six of Mrs D’s complaints and found:

• There were no case notes that showed the social worker explained to Mrs D why she was added into a pool of possible perpetrators.
• The social worker failed to follow the steps and make a referral to Mrs D’s employer.
• The social worker was wrong to leave a child in the care of people who were identified as possible perpetrators.
• The Council failed to respond to Mrs D’s email when she asked for an explanation and rationale around the decision making.
• There was a communication failure which meant that there was a delay in Mrs D having contact with her grandchildren.
• The Council failed to appropriately respond to Mrs D’s stage one complaint.

28. The IO did not uphold complaints two and three because she found there was no statutory duty for the Council to assess Mrs D. She partially upheld complaint four because although the pool of possible perpetrators was part of a court process, the Council could have provided Mrs D with some more information on who was responsible for the decision making.
29. The IO recommended for the Council to apologise, consider financial recompense for the stress caused, hold staff accountable for their failings and offer Mrs D a meeting with an appropriate director to discuss her concerns.
30. The IP agreed with the IO’s conclusions and recommendations.
31. Mrs D emailed the Council for an update on her stage two complaint on 4 January 2020. The Council responded on 6 January and said her complaint entered the adjudication stage on 23 December 2019, and the Director of Children’s Social Care would consider the reports of the IO and IP.
32. Mrs D asked the Council for an update on 15 January. The Council responded and said the Director of Children’s Social Care was still considering the reports.
33. Mrs D chased for further updates on 24 January and 31 January. The Council explained it had no update to share but was actively seeking a response. It explained there was a delay because of the Christmas and New Year break.
34. The Council provided Mrs D with its stage two complaint response on 14 February. It apologised for the delay in responding. It agreed with the IO’s and IP’s conclusions apart from complaint four. It said it was the court’s decision to remove Mrs D from the pool of possible perpetrators. However, it accepted it would have been helpful for staff to have provided Mrs D with some explanation.
35. The Council apologised to Mrs D for the distress caused. It said it had addressed matters with relevant staff. It also said it had updated its practice standards and had sent it to all staff, alongside a comprehensive and rolling training programme. It offered her £200 for her time, trouble, and distress in bringing the complaint and a further £300 for her avoidable distress.
36. Mrs D emailed the Council and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three. She said she was insulted with the offer of compensation and the Council had not fully explained what it had done to change its procedures.
37. The Council arranged a stage three panel for 27 March.
38. The COVID-19 pandemic began March. Mrs D emailed the Council on 18 March and asked to postpone the panel because she was self-isolating. The Council said it would not hold the panel until matters with COVID-19 became clearer and it would update her in the next month.
39. The Council emailed Mrs D on 14 April and said a face-to-face panel was not possible. It asked her if she wanted to wait until government restrictions had eased or if she wanted to consider a video call. Mrs D confirmed she wanted to wait for a face-to-face meeting.
40. The Council emailed Mrs D on 12 May and said the position remained unchanged and asked for her views. Mrs D said she would have a video call if that was the only option. The Council replied and said she was entitled to wait for a face-to face meeting. It asked her to take some time to consider her options. Mrs D said she would wait for the face-to-face meeting.
41. After a further exchange of emails, the Council emailed Mrs D on 9 July and said as government restrictions had eased, it could arrange a face-to-face panel meeting.
42. The stage three independent panel met on 21 September. Mrs D agreed the panel would only review the not upheld and partially upheld complaints.
43. The panel concluded that complaints two and three would remain not upheld. It partially upheld complaint four because although the Council was not responsible for removing Mrs D from the pool of possible perpetrators, it could have provided her with an explanation. The panel supported the recommendations of the IO but said the financial remedy should be reviewed because of the loss of contact between Mrs D and her grandchildren.
44. The Council wrote to Mrs D on 6 October. It said Mrs D could have got her own legal advice for complaint four and so did not uphold her complaint. It increased its total offer from £500 to £600 because of the impact on Mrs D while she was waiting for further communication from the Council about contact with her grandchildren.
45. Mrs D remained unhappy with the Council’s response. She said the Council had not properly remedied the distress her and her family had suffered.

Back to top

Analysis

46. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. A late complaint is when someone takes more than 12 months to complaint to us about something a council has done. Mrs D became aware of some issues that she complained about in July 2018. She first contacted the Ombudsman in January 2020. I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate Mrs D’s injustice from July 2018. This is because she first complained to the Council in June 2019 and then engaged in a lengthy process which did not end until October 2020.
47. The Council has responded to Mrs D’s complaint in detail. The IO’s report is thorough, and she carefully addressed all of Mrs D’s complaints. Mrs D agreed the investigation had been full and thorough but disagreed with the remedy. Therefore, my role is to is not to re-investigate the complaint, but to identify any shortcomings in the investigation and the remedy offered.
48. The Council offered Mrs D £200 for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and £400 for the distress she suffered.
49. The Ombudsman guidance on remedies says any remedy should reflect the circumstances of the case, including the severity of the distress and the length of time involved. A payment for distress is often a modest sum between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress is severe or prolonged, up to £1000 may be justified. Occasionally, we may recommend more than this.
50. There was a significant delay of 41 working days in dealing with Mrs D’s complaint at stage two. I appreciate the Council experienced some delays because of staff absences and the timescale for a response fell near to the Christmas period. However, it failed to stick to the timescales specified in the statutory guidance. This is fault. The evidence shows Mrs D had to chase for updates. I welcome that the Council apologised to Mrs D for this delay. However, I recommend it increases its offer from £200 to £300 for the time, trouble and delay Mrs D suffered in pursuing her complaint. This amount also reflects that the Council’s stage one response to Mrs D was inadequate and caused unnecessary upset.
51. There were further delays in re-arranging the stage three panel meeting, but this was because of COVID-19, and was therefore outside the Council’s control. Mrs D stated her preference of a face-to-face meeting and the Council kept her updated throughout.
52. Mrs D has described the distress, trauma, and psychological impact she has suffered. I accept that Mrs D has suffered a significant injustice. She was left without contact with her grandchildren for several weeks longer than necessary. She was also not given any information on the Council’s rationale and decision making, which caused even more frustration and distress. However, the Council’s offer of £400 is in line with our guidance on remedies. I therefore do not recommend anything further.
53. I have reviewed the notes from the panel meeting, and I am satisfied the Council explained to Mrs D in detail the improvements it has made in its services since she raised her complaint. I therefore do not recommend any further service improvements.

Agreed action

54. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 12 May 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mrs D £300 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
• Pay Mrs D the £400 it recommended in its complaint response for the distress and upset she has suffered from the identified faults.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have found by the Council, causing an injustice to Mrs D. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman