Summary: I did not find fault with the Council for the way it considered Mr C’s complaint through the statutory complaint process.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained the Council failed to safeguard his son, D. He said it failed to carry out an assessment of D and failed to consider all the relevant information and historic concerns.
2. Mr C said it put D at risk and this caused him (Mr C) distress.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr C provided with his complaint. I considered the information the Council provided along with relevant law and guidance.
6. Mr C and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered any comments I received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Statutory Complaints

7. Section 26(3) of the Children Act, 1989 says all functions of the local authority under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
8. The handling and consideration of complaints under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages: Stage 1 - Local Resolution, Stage 2 - Investigation and Stage 3 - Review Panel. (Department of Education, 2006, Statutory guidance for local authority children’s services on representations and complaints procedures)
9. At stage two an investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent and fair.
10. The IO writes a stage two report which includes:
• details of findings, conclusions and outcomes are against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and
• recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
11. Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as Adjudicating Officer (AO) and consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The AO will prepare a response to the reports and should invite the complainant to an adjudication meeting, either before or after writing their adjudication. In the AO’s response, the complainant should be informed of their right to approach the Ombudsman at any time (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).

Early referral to the Ombudsman

12. There are some circumstances when an early referral to the Ombudsman without completing stage three may be appropriate.
13. The Council can only consider this option once stage two has been concluded and the complainant has received the Council’s adjudication.
14. There are several important safeguards that must be in place before proceeding with this option. Stage two must have delivered:
• a very robust report;
• a complete adjudication;
• an outcome where all complaints have been upheld (or all significant complaints relating to service delivery in respect of the qualifying individual);

and

• the Council is providing a clear action plan for delivery; and
• the Council agreed to meet the majority, or all of, the desired outcomes presented by the complainant regarding social services functions.
4. Where this is the case, and the complainant agrees, the Council can then ask the Ombudsman to consider the complaint directly, without first going through a review panel.
5. The Ombudsman will apply a test of reasonableness to this decision. If the Ombudsman concludes that early referral was incorrect, we may select from a range of responses. This may include proposing that the complaint is considered by the Council at a stage three review panel in the normal manner.

What happened

17. What follows is summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
18. In 2019 D’s school made a safeguarding referral to the Council. The Council made some enquiries and decided it did not meet the threshold for an assessment. It asked the school to monitor the situation and closed the case.
19. Mr C was unhappy with the Council’s decision. He said the Council failed to consider all the available information and relevant historic concerns. He complained to the Council in January 2021. It responded at stage one of its complaint procedure. Mr C remained unhappy, so the Council appointed an IO and IP for the stage two statutory investigation.
20. Mr C met with the IO and IP in March 2021. He agreed the complaint and desired outcomes.
21. The IO and IP upheld Mr C’s complaint that the Council was at fault for failing to carry out an assessment following the safeguarding referral in 2019. It made recommendations. The Council’s adjudication agreed with the stage two findings and recommendations.
22. Mr C asked for his complaint to be considered by the review panel at stage three. The Council refused to progress to stage three because it upheld the complaint and agreed with all the recommendations at stage two. It directed Mr C to the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.

My findings

23. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we would generally not reinvestigate the substantive issues simply because the complainant was unhappy with the outcome. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless a complainant can point to and evidence serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.
24. I did not find fault with the way the Council handled Mr C’s complaint. It followed the correct process and the case met the criteria for an early referral to the Ombudsman.
25. The Council already conducted a thorough investigation at stage two and upheld Mr C’s complaint. It agreed it was at fault for failing to carry out an assessment following a safeguarding referral about D.
26. It agreed to the recommendations which provided a suitable remedy. It also agreed to service improvements to reduce the likelihood of repeated fault in the future.
27. I did not have any concerns about the statutory investigation, so I did not reinvestigate the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I did not investigate the substantive part of the complaint about the Council’s failure to protect D following a safeguarding referral. I did not find fault with the statutory complaint investigation, so reinvestigation is not necessary or warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman