Summary: Mr X complained about flaws in the Council’s investigation of his complaint under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. He said the errors caused him distress and financial loss. The Council appropriately investigated his complaint under the statutory procedure so we will not re-investigate. The investigation found the Council was at fault. It has apologised to him for the upheld parts of the complaint and offered an appropriate financial remedy for the injustice caused. It also accepted it did not send him a copy of the stage 3 panel report within the statutory timescales. This was fault but the Council has apologised to him which is an appropriate remedy. The Council has agreed to re-confirm its financial remedy offer to Mr X for the upheld complaints and remind staff of the statutory process for the sharing of the stage 3 report.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about flaws in the Council’s handling of his complaint under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. He says the stage 2 investigation did not consider all points of his complaint, contained errors and the stage 3 panel ignored additional information he provided. The Council partially upheld his complaint and has offered a remedy.
2. Mr X wants the Council to uphold his complaint in full, apologise to him and provide an increased financial remedy to recognise the distress caused and to compensate him for lost earnings and legal costs incurred.

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)
5. 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

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
7. I considered information provided by the Council and Mr X.
8. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

10. There is a formal procedure, set out in law, which council must follow to investigate certain types of complaints. It involves three stages:
• Stage 1 - Local resolution by the Council.
• Stage 2 – an investigation by an independent investigator who will prepare a detailed report and findings. The investigation is overseen by an independent person to ensure its impartiality. The Council then issues an adjudication letter which sets out its response to the findings.
• Stage 3 – an independent panel to consider their outstanding issues.
11. The procedure says the stage 3 panel must send their report to the complainant, the local authority, the independent person from stage 2 and any other person with sufficient interest within 5 working days of the panel meeting.
12. When a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether the council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel and any remedy the council offers.

What happened

13. Mr X has two children Y and Z. Y lives with their mother and does not live with Mr X. Mr X and Z’s mother share Z’s care. In April 2019, Y made a safeguarding allegation again Mr X. The Council began an investigation.
14. In August 2019, Mr X complained to the Council. He complained about restrictions placed on his contact with Z, expressed concern the Council had not addressed his concerns about Y’s welfare and about poor communication. He says other members of his family also raised concerns.
15. The Council accepted his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure and provided a stage 1 response. It partly upheld his complaints and apologised to him for any confusion and delay.
16. Mr X was dissatisfied with the response and said it had not resolved the issues he had raised. He asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The stage 2 investigation was then delayed due to ongoing court action.
17. In 2020, the Council appointed an investigating officer and independent person to investigate Mr X’s complaint. The investigator and independent person met with Mr X in June 2020. They discussed his complaint and agreed the scope of the investigation. They agreed there were six points of complaint which they would investigate.
18. The investigator completed their report. They partly upheld Mr X’s complaint. The investigator shared the findings with the Council, who agreed with the report findings and agreed to implement the recommended service improvements.
19. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 3. He said the stage 2 investigation was not detailed enough, had ignored several points of his complaint and he disagreed with the parts not upheld. He also said the Council had not offered him a remedy for the upheld parts.
20. The Council accepted his request and in October 2020, an independent stage 3 panel considered his complaint.
21. The panel reviewed the investigation findings and decided to uphold two of the points not upheld at stage 2. The panel upheld that the Council:
• Did change its view and recommended Mr X should be supervised when seeing his children, but did not tell Mr X it had changed its view.
• Did not appropriately address his concerns about parental alienation.
• Did not always address concerns raised by him and other members of his family.
• Did not communicate with him as it had agreed.
22. After the panel, Mr X contacted the Council to say he had not received a copy of the panel report within 5 working days of the meeting. The Council accepted it should have sent this to him and said it did not due to a misunderstanding between the Council and the panel. It contacted the panel chair who sent Mr X a copy of the report. It apologised to him for any distress caused.
23. The Council accepted the panel’s findings, apologised to Mr X for the upheld points and accepted the stage 2 investigation should have been more robust. It said it had reviewed its practices in light of his complaint and told him how it was improving its services. It offered him £200 as a financial remedy in recognition of the time and trouble he had spent pursuing his complaint and distress caused.
24. Mr X remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. He said the investigation did not cover all his points and stuck to the exact wording of the complaint rather than looking at the bigger picture. He also said the stage 3 panel did not send him a copy of its report within 5 working days, which was a breach of the statutory procedure and showed bias towards the Council. He said the Council’s offer of £200 as remedy was insufficient for the distress caused, and for legal costs and loss of earnings incurred because of the Council’s actions.
25. Since bringing his complaint to us, the Council has reviewed its offer of financial remedy to Mr X and increased it to £1000. Mr X told us that he still considered this insufficient to compensate him for costs incurred and the distress caused.

Analysis

26. Although Mr X says the stage 2 investigation did not cover all his points, he agreed the statement of complaint with the investigator at the start of the investigation. The investigation report made findings on all points and partly upheld his complaint.
27. Mr X did not agree with the findings and when he asked to escalate the complaint to stage 3, the Council acted as we would expect by convening an independent stage 3 panel.
28. Part of the panel’s role is to consider the adequacy of the stage 2 investigation and analyse any further information provided. The panel considered Mr X’s views and reviewed the stage 2 investigation. It concluded the investigation should have been more robust and, after considering all the information, revised the findings to uphold two further points.
29. The Council investigated his complaint at all 3 stages of the statutory process. The stage 3 panel fulfilled its purpose by independently reviewing the investigation and revising the findings. As it appropriately considered the complaint, we will not re-investigate. The investigation found the Council was at fault and upheld most of Mr X’s complaint.
30. The stage 3 panel did not send Mr X a copy of its report within 5 working days, as set out in the statutory procedure. This is fault. The Council has accepted it should have done this and apologised to Mr X. This is an appropriate remedy for any distress caused. The stage 3 panel was independent and I do not consider the delay sending Mr X the report had any bearing on the panel’s findings.
31. The Council accepted the panel’s findings and apologised to Mr X for the upheld complaints in its stage 3 response. It has offered Mr X £1000 as financial remedy for the upheld parts of the complaint. I have considered the points of complaint upheld, the injustice caused by these and consulted our Guidance on Remedies. I cannot say the Council’s actions caused Mr X loss of earnings or legal costs. If Mr X wishes to pursue this claim, these matters would be better considered by a court. However, its actions did cause him considerable distress. The Council’s offer of £1000 is in line with our Guidance on Remedies, so I cannot recommend the Council increase its offer. The Council should now re-confirm its remedy offer of £1000 to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed actions

32. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to;
• re-confirm its offer to Mr X of £1000 for the upheld points of his complaint and pay him this amount if he accepts this offer.
• Remind relevant staff of the requirement to send a copy of the stage 3 panel report to complainants within 5 working days of the panel meeting, in line with the statutory procedure.

It should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. The Council was at fault. It has offered Mr X an appropriate remedy for the upheld parts of his complaint and will now re-confirm this offer to Mr X. It will also remind staff of the statutory process for the sharing of the stage 3 report.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman