Summary: Miss Y complained her complaint the Council failed to support and protect her daughter was not properly considered by the Council under the statutory complaints procedure. We have found fault by the Council regarding the remedy proposed in response to her complaint, and the delay in completing the Stage 3 review, causing injustice. We do not consider the recommendation meets our expectations based on our published remedies guidance. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and making a payment to reflect the distress its failures caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Miss Y, complains her complaint about the Council’s Children’s Social Care team – that it failed to adequately support her daughter and protect her from the risk of sexual exploitation – was not properly considered by the Council under the statutory complaints procedure.
2. Miss Y complains:

• There were delays in the procedure;
• Not all her complaints were investigated or addressed;
• The Council provided incorrect information to the investigating officer and the review panel;
• The panel did not properly consider her representations at the review hearing; and
• The panel changed some of the investigating officer’s findings upholding parts of her complaint.

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 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

5. I spoke to Miss Y about her complaint, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Miss Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
6. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the OFSTED.

Back to top

What I found

The statutory complaint procedure for children’s complaints

8. 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.
9. 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 2 investigation. Stage 2 investigations are carried out by an independent investigator and overseen by an independent person.
10. If complainants are unhappy with the outcome of the Stage 2 investigation, they can request a stage 3 review, conducted by a panel.
11. A council senior manager, acting as Adjudicating Officer, should consider the independent investigator’s (and if appropriate the review panel’s) reports, identify the council’s response, decision on each complaint point and action to be taken.
12. The procedure also sets out timescales for completing the process.
13. 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

14. Statutory Guidance “Getting the Best from Complaints” sets out how councils should follow the statutory complaints procedure.
15. The guidance explained Review Panels should not generally reinvestigate complaints or consider any substantially new issues not considered at Stage 2. Their purpose was to:

• listen to all parties;
• consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation;
• obtain 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

16. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we generally do not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide an independent, detailed investigation and analysis of each the concerns raised.
17. 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.
18. Our role is usually limited to looking at whether the complaint issues were properly considered, and appropriate remedies recommended and implemented.

What happened

19. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
20. Miss Y complained about the action taken by the Council’s Children’s Social Care team to support her daughter and protect her from the risk of exploitation. In 2019, the Council began the process of considering Miss Y’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
21. It appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) to investigate Miss Y’s complaint, together with an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation.

The Stage 2 investigation

22. The IO met with Miss Y to agree the statement of the complaints to be investigated. The statement of complaint dated 1 October 2019 included 28 complaints.
23. The IO completed her investigation and issued her report in February 2020. In her report the IO:

• Set out details of the officers interviewed, and the records she had seen, which included case notes, child in need and looked after children reviews and child protection reports;
• In regard to each complaint issue, set out the relevant information she had considered and her findings, with reasons;
• Upheld or partially upheld 6 of the complaints;
• Did not uphold 12 of the complaints;
• Made no finding on 5 of the complaints and confirmed another complaint had been withdrawn; and
• Confirmed 4 of the complaints could not be investigated until ongoing police and criminal proceedings had been completed.

24. The IO upheld Miss Y’s complaints:

• The Council hastily and inappropriately stepped down its support for her daughter when her behaviour was escalating (complaint 14);
• The Council later failed to accommodate her daughter in a timely and appropriate manner leaving her vulnerable and at risk (complaint 1); and
• While her daughter was being cared for under a private fostering arrangement, the foster carer’s request for respite was denied, and the Council also denied the request had been made (complaint 9).

25. The IO partially upheld the complaints:

• The Council did not take Miss Y’s concerns about her daughter seriously enough initially (complaint 13);
• There was a failure to take appropriate safeguarding action or investigation regarding a serious incident which took place while her daughter was within a care placement. Although the IO found correct procedures were followed, there was no record Miss Y was advised about the outcome (complaint 16); and
• It was unacceptable she should have been asked to give permission for her daughter not to be reported missing should she fail to return to the care home. Although the records indicated social workers had discussed her daughter staying overnight at a friend’s house, there was no record Miss Y had been asked to give, or gave, her permission for this (complaint 19).

26. Miss Y’s desired outcomes from the IO’s investigation were:

• people should be sacked for failing to safeguard a child
• there were serious issues regarding the UN Convention of Children’s Rights within the Council.
• The Council had made serious allegations about her and handled the court paperwork wrongly, defaming her and devastating her as a person and parent.

27. The IO said she had not found any matters warranting disciplinary action. If any procedures were instigated this would be a matter between employer and employee only.
28. The IO recommended the Council should:

• apologise to Miss Y for the matters in respect of which complaints had been upheld or partially upheld;
• acknowledge the distress and upset she experienced regarding the information provided at a court hearing. The IO had acknowledged in the report Miss Y would have found the proceedings a harrowing and distressing experience given the information presented; and
• make a service improvement by reminding all staff any actions or communications should be clearly documented in the case records.

29. The IP confirmed she was satisfied with the way the IO had completed her investigation and reached her findings.
30. The Council wrote to Miss Y in April 2020. It accepted the IO’s report and findings. It apologised for the failures identified in the report, acknowledged Miss Y’s distress and explained the action it would take to implement each of the recommendations.

The first Stage 3 review

31. Miss Y was not satisfied with all the IO’s findings. She felt the Council had provided the IO with false information. She asked for the IO’s investigation and findings to be reviewed at a panel hearing
32. A panel hearing was arranged for April 2021. Miss Y submitted the issues she wanted the panel to consider. The Council says Miss Y then cancelled the hearing because she felt the review would not achieve the outcomes she was seeking.

Miss Y’s first complaint to us

33. Miss Y contacted the Council again with her comments about the stage 2 investigation findings. The Council told her the statutory complaints process had been concluded and it would not respond further.
34. Miss Y complained to us in June 2021. In August 2021 we decided there had been a delay completing the stage 2 investigation and the Council had given Miss Y incorrect information about the stage 3 review process. The Council agreed to complete the stage 3 review within one month of 16 August and make a payment to Miss Y to reflect the delay and her time and trouble.

The Stage 3 review panel hearing – 26 October 2021

35. The panel’s report set out what happened at the hearing, including:

• It had been conducted virtually by Teams
• Miss Y had problems with the link and had to move between different locations
• The sound quality left a lot to be desired, but the panel had confirmed they could hear Miss Y.

36. The report said Miss Y told the panel she was unhappy with the Stage 2 report, the way it was worded, and that the IO had taken the officers’ word at face value.
37. Miss Y told the panel why she was unhappy with a number of the IO’s findings. The panel went through the complaints one by one, and Miss Y provided her comments on each one. The Council’s complaints officer, service manager and the IO attending the meeting replied to her comments.

The review panel report

38. The report was completed on 30 October 2021 and sent to Miss Y on 2 November 2021. It set out the documents considered and explained the panel’s reasons for changing three of the IO’s findings (complaint 6, from ‘’ not upheld’’ to ‘’no finding possible’’, complaint 15 from ‘’unable to make a finding’’ to ‘’not upheld’’, and complaints 16 and 19 from ‘’partially upheld’’ to ‘’not upheld’’ and their reasons for agreeing with the remainder of the IO’s findings.
39. The panel recommended social workers be reminded of the need to be clear about reasons for home visits and talking to other siblings and to inform the family of the reason for assessments.

The Council’s response – 10 November 2021

40. The Council confirmed to Miss Y it fully accepted the panel’s report and how it would implement the recommendation.

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Complaint (a): There were delays in the procedure

41. I have not considered delays in the procedure before August 2021. We investigated and made a decision about this as part of Miss Y’s previous complaint to us.
42. The Council agreed in August 2021 to complete Stage 3 by 15 September 2021, but did not do so until 10 November 2021, a delay of nearly two months.
43. I have not seen any explanation for the delay. I consider this would have caused Miss Y some additional inconvenience for which the Council should apologise.

Complaint (b): Not all of Miss Y’s complaints were investigated or addressed

44. The IO agreed a statement of complaint with Miss Y setting out the complaints to be investigated. The IO’s report provides the details of each of these complaints, the information considered and the reasons for her findings.
45. The panel report covers each of the complaints set out in the IO’s report.
46. I do not consider there was a failure to investigate or address the complaint issues agreed with Miss Y, as set out in the statement of complaint. I have not found fault with this.

Complaint (c): The Council provided incorrect information to the investigating officer and the review panel

47. The evidence I have seen shows the IO interviewed the officers involved with Miss Y and her daughter and considered relevant records.
48. I appreciate Miss Y disagrees with some statements made by the Council’s officers. My view is both the IO and the panel recognised, regarding some complaints, there was a dispute between Miss Y and the officers about what happened. Where there was no written or independent information available, they explained why they were unable to make a finding in these circumstances.
49. I do not consider I have seen any evidence showing the Council provided incorrect information. I have not found fault with this.

Complaint (d): The panel did not properly consider Miss Y’s representations at the review hearing

50. Although the hearing was recorded, the Council has not found a way to share the recording with me. I have made my finding on this part of the complaint on the basis of the evidence available to me.
51. Miss Y has not provided details of representations she made at the hearing which were not included in the panel’s account of this. The panel’s report set out Miss Y’s comments on each of the complaint issues, the Council’s and the panel’s response to these comments and the reasons for its findings.
52. My view is there is nothing to show Miss Y’s representations at the hearing were not properly considered. I have not found fault with this.

Complaint (e): The panel changed some of the IO’s findings

53. I understand Miss Y was disappointed the panel decided not to uphold two of her complaints which had previously been partially upheld by the IO.
54. But as explained in paragraph 14 above, part of the panel’s role was to review the complaints and the IO’s investigation and then reach its own findings. In most cases it agreed with the IO’s findings, and where it did not agree and made a different finding, I consider it properly explained its reasons for this.
55. I do not consider there was fault in the way the panel made its decision not to uphold these two complaints.

(f)The conduct of the Stage 2 investigation and Stage 3 review

56. Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is the IO’s Stage 2 investigation was thorough and detailed. She spoke to Miss Y and the Council officers involved in the matters complained about. She considered the relevant documentation. She addressed and made findings on each of the separate complaint issues. The investigation was overseen by an IP.
57. The Stage 3 review considered the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation. The panel was provided with the relevant information about the complaint issues and findings. The panel’s record of the hearing confirms the chair offered to talk Miss Y though the hearing process beforehand, although the invitation was not accepted. Miss Y had to change locations during the virtual hearing, because of a loss of wi-fi. But I note she was given the opportunity to adjourn the hearing and confirmed she wanted to continue. Miss Y was able to make representations to the panel on each of the complaint issues and IO’s findings, which the panel then addressed in its report.
58. I do not consider there is anything to suggest the IO’s investigation or conduct of the review panel hearing was flawed or carried out incorrectly. I have not found fault with this.

(g) The remedies proposed by the IO and the review panel

59. I have reviewed the remedies. These included recommendations the Council apologise to Miss Y for the failings identified in the investigation and acknowledge the distress caused by information referred to at the court hearing. I note it has done this. I understand the Council has carried out the recommended service improvements.
60. The IO and the review panel upheld Miss Y’s complaints the Council hastily and inappropriately stepped down its support for her daughter when her behaviour was escalating, and later failed to accommodate her in a timely and appropriate manner leaving her vulnerable and at risk.
61. They also partially upheld Miss Y’s complaint the Council did not take her concerns about her daughter seriously enough initially.
62. In my view these were the most serious aspects of Miss Y’s complaint and significant failings by the Council. I do not consider we can say with any certainty what difference these failures made to the outcome for Miss Y’s daughter. But I consider the uncertainty about this, and whether things might have been different, but for the Council’s failures, has caused Miss Y considerable distress.
63. I do not consider an apology alone is a sufficient remedy for this distress and does not meet the expectations in our published remedies guidance. I have found fault by the Council in not making appropriate redress to Miss Y for the injustice its failures caused her.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the above faults (complaints a and g), and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, by:

• apologising to Miss Y for its delay in completing the Stage 3 review; and
• paying Miss Y £500 to reflect the distress the Council’s failures caused her. This figure is a symbolic amount based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.

65. 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 a higher figure may be justified.
66. In recommending the figure of £500, I have considered the length of time involved and, given her daughter’s extremely serious circumstances, the level of distress the uncertainty about the impact of the Council’s failures caused Miss Y.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has completed the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have found fault by the Council, regarding complaints a and g, causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will carry out the above actions as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman