Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to carry out agreed support and record information about her children. Miss X also complains about how her complaint was investigated. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to properly record information, and for the issues identified in its complaint handling. However, the Council recognised the fault in its stage three complaint response and the remedies provided were in line with our guidance. We recommend no further action by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to carry out Child Protection and Child In Need plans, and failed to record and respond to concerns that she raised about her children’s welfare.
2. Miss X complains the Council delayed conducting a full review of the case despite agreeing to. This meant the issues took longer to resolve and Miss X felt her concerns were not taken seriously.
3. Miss X complains the Council has failed to understand the impact its maladministration has had on her and her children and delayed investigating her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 2974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I considered Miss X’s complaint and information she provided. I also considered information from the Council.
7. I considered comments from Miss X and the Council on a draft of my decision.
8. 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

What I found

Legislation and guidance

The statutory complaint procedure for children’s complaints

9. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to have a formal complaints procedure to deal primarily with complaints by and on behalf of children and young people.
10. The process has a three-stage structure. At stage one, a council responds to a complaint. If a complainant is not satisfied, they can ask for a stage two investigation. Stage two investigations are carried out by an independent investigator and overseen by an independent person.
11. If complainants are unhappy with the outcome of the Stage two investigation, they can request a stage three review, conducted by a panel.
12. A council senior manager, acting as Adjudicating Officer, should consider the independent investigator’s (and if suitable the review panel’s) reports, identify the council’s response, decision on each complaint point and action to be taken.
13. The procedure also sets out timescales for completing the process.
14. Not all complaints about children’s services must go through the statutory complaints procedure. Complaints brought by parents concerning their own rights rather than those of their children, can use the Council’s normal corporate complaints procedure. However, once a council has opted to use the statutory complaints procedure, even if it does not have to, it should complete the process.

The purpose of Review Panels

15. Statutory Guidance “Getting the Best from Complaints” sets out how councils should follow the statutory complaints procedure.
16. The guidance explained Review Panels should not generally reinvestigate complaints or consider any substantially new issues not considered at Stage two. Their purpose was to:

• listen to all parties;
• consider the adequacy of the Stage two investigation;
• get any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint;
• focus on achieving resolution for the complainant by addressing their defined complaints and outcomes;
• reach findings on each of the complaints they review;
• make recommendations providing practical remedies and solutions;
• support local solutions where possible;
• identify injustice where complaints are upheld and recommend appropriate redress; and
• recommend service improvements.

Our role

17. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we do not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide an independent, detailed investigation and analysis of each the concerns raised.
18. This means it is not necessary for us to carry out any further investigation of the complaint issues, unless we find there were serious and fundamental flaws in the way they were investigated and considered under the statutory complaints procedure.
19. Our role is usually limited to looking at whether the complaint issues were properly considered, and suitable remedies recommended and implemented.

What happened

20. I have set out a summary of the key events below.
21. Miss X complained about the action taken by the Council’s Children’s Social Care team to safeguard her children. The Council began the process of considering Miss X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
22. It appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) to investigate Miss X’s complaint, with an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation.
23. The IO met with Miss X to agree the statement of the complaints to be investigated. The statement of complaint dated included 74 complaints.
24. I have summarised the complaint areas as follows;

• The Council failed to provide the agreed support in Child Protection and child in need plans.
• The Council failed to properly record concerns and information in its record keeping.
• The Council failed to appoint an independent social worker when it agreed to
• The Council’s complaint handling was poor and failed to recognise the distress caused by its maladministration to Miss X and her children.

25. The IO completed their investigation and issued their report.
26. The IO said they had not found any matters warranting disciplinary action. If any procedures were instigated this would be a matter between employer and employee only, and that Miss X could take her concerns to Social Work England.
27. The IP confirmed they was satisfied with the way the IO had completed their investigation and reached their findings.
28. Miss X was not satisfied with all the IO’s findings. She felt the report had not robustly considered the evidence that she had put forward and the concerns she raised. Council had provided the IO with false information. She asked for the IO’s investigation and findings to be reviewed at a panel hearing
29. The Council arranged for a stage three investigation. The investigation found included a review of the IO and IP’s reports. It considered the documents from the IP and IO, as well as interviewed the officers relevant to Miss X’s complaint.
30. The Council arranged a panel hearing. Miss X presented the issues she wanted the panel to consider.
31. The stage three panel disagreed with some of the findings from the stage two investigation, and upheld more Miss X’s complaints than the stage two had previously done.
32. The stage three investigation recommended the Council

• apologise for the complaints that had been upheld
• Decide whether Miss X could use the information from the complaints in private court proceedings
• Consider whether an independent social worker can take case responsibility
• Remind staff and managers about the importance of keeping accurate records

33. Miss X remained unhappy with the Councils response and felt the actions did not account for the distress caused to her family. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Complaint handling

34. The stage three investigation recognised there had been issues and delays when managing Miss X’s complaints. It also recognised that due to the large volume of complaints, it had had to cap the hours spent on the complaint.
35. I do not consider there was a failure to investigate or address the complaint issues agreed with Miss X, as set out in the statement of complaint. I have not found fault with this.
36. The evidence I have seen shows the stage three investigation interviewed the officers involved with Miss X and her children and considered relevant records.
37. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with some statements made by the Council’s officers. Both the IO and the panel recognised there was a dispute between Miss X and the officers about what happened for some of the complaints. Where there was no written or independent information available, it explained why they could not make a finding in these circumstances.
38. The stage three report upholds Miss X’s complaint there had been issues and delays with the complaint handling.
39. Miss X was disappointed the stage three investigation decided not to uphold some of her complaints. However, part of the panel’s role was to review the complaints and the IO’s investigation and then reach its own findings. Where it did not agree and made a different finding, I consider it properly explained its reasons for this.
40. I do not consider there was fault in the way the panel made its decision not to uphold more of Miss X’s complaints.
41. The Stage three review considered the adequacy of the Stage two investigation. The panel was provided with the relevant information about the complaint issues and findings. Miss X could represent to the panel on each of the complaint issues and IO’s findings, which the panel then addressed in its report.
42. I do not consider there is anything to suggest the investigation or conduct of the review panel hearing was flawed or carried out mistakenly. I have not found fault with this.
43. The stage three investigation upheld Miss X’s complaint about poor complaint handling and recommended a remedy for the distress caused to Miss X for this. This remedy was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Independent social worker

44. Part of Miss X’s complaint is the Council agreed to appoint an independent social worker to complete a full review of the case, however it then failed to do this. The Council said it had agreed to consider appointing an independent social worker. However, after consideration, it decided it would not be suitable to appoint one as it would mean a further change in social worker for the children.
45. I have reviewed the stage two report and communication about appointing an independent social worker. The stage two response sets out the AO could decide an independent social worker should be involved with the family work if there is a benefit to this. However, the investigation did not find cause to recommend this.
46. The Council initially appointed an independent investigator following the stage two investigation, however no work commenced.
47. The stage three response sets out how the investigation considered whether it would be suitable to appoint an independent social worker.
48. The evidence from the Council shows that it was an option it considered but decided against. I appreciate Miss X has been caused uncertainty by the decision to initially appoint someone, however, the Council has shown its consideration of the stage three recommendations and a remedy for distress. There was no fault in how the Council has reached its decision.

Child protection and child in need plans

49. Part of Miss X’s complaint is the Council failed to carry out the agreed support from child protection and Child in need plans.
50. The stage three investigation by the Council found there were some actions still to be completed. This included actions from the Child Protection plan. The stage three panel met with the social worker responsible and identified issues for why this had not happened. The Council recognised that some actions were not completed and recommended apologising to Miss X.
51. The stage three report accepted Miss X’s complaint that there were outstanding actions that had not been achieved or completed. However, did not uphold that it was a systematic failure and decided it did not uphold the complaint.
52. The stage three report recognises that actions were not completed but does not set out what impact this had on Miss X and the children. This has left Miss X distressed and uncertain. As the Council did not uphold the complaint due to the use of the terms “systematic”, there were no actions identified for the Council to consider outstanding actions.
53. The Council should have considered what actions were outstanding and whether there would be any impact on Miss X and her children.
54. I do not consider we can say with any certainty what difference this fault made to the result for Miss X’s children. But I consider the uncertainty about this, and whether things might have been different, but for the Council’s failures, has caused Miss X notable distress.
55. As Miss X’s case is now closed to the Council, it is unlikely that any outstanding actions would have a continuing impact or injustice. However, I recognise the uncertainty that this has caused Miss X.

Information recording

56. Part of Miss X’s complaint is the Council failed to record some of her safeguarding concerns. She also complained the Council failed to record information, failed to include important information in its reports and failed to share information in a timely manner.
57. The stage three investigation upheld Miss X’s complaint, and recognised that record keeping had been poor on some occasions, with information missing. Where information was missing, it meant the Council could not make a finding on other parts of Miss X’s complaint.
58. The Council has upheld Miss X’s complaint about record keeping and has explained how it considered this fault in other parts of the investigation. However, it says the missing information would not have changed any decisions the Council has made. The Council proposed to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused to Miss X with a financial payment. This remedy is proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. I uphold Miss X’s complaint about record keeping, however the Council has provided the appropriate remedy for this.

Proposed remedies

59. I have reviewed the remedies proposed at Stage three. These included recommendations the Council apologise to Miss X for the failings identified in the investigation and recognised the distress caused. The report recommended £1200 and £600 to recognise the fault and distress and I understand the Council has carried out the recommended payment and service improvements.
60. The stage two and stage three and the review panel upheld Miss X’s complaints the Council had failed to keep suitable records. It accepted the Council had failed to communicate with her about some of the issues and conferences.
61. However, the stage three response said that all professionals agreed the actions of the case remained the same, and no further action was needed about continuing support for Miss X and her children.
62. There is confusion in the stage three investigation about outstanding actions that were not completed and what impact this had on Miss X and her children. These were the most significant failings by the Council which have caused Miss X distress.
63. Our guidance says a remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. But in cases where the distress is severe or prolonged, up to £1000 may be justified.
64. In this case the Council has offered Miss X £1800 in recognition of the maladministration. The Councils remedy is reasonable given the maladministration and fault found.
65. The Council has already carried out the recommendations from the Stage three, and has remedied the distress as well as agreed to implement the service improvements. I uphold Miss X’s complaint however as the Council has already carried out the remedies, I recommend no further action from the Council.

Final decision

66. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold Miss X’s complaints the Council failed to record information suitably and failed to communicate with her properly about meetings and reports. The Council’s proposed remedies are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and therefore I recommend no further action.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I have not considered

67. Parts of Miss X’s complaints link to the information presented by the Council in reports which have been considered in court.
68. I have not considered these parts of Miss X’s complaint, as it is too closely linked to matters which have been considered in court and are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman