Summary: The statutory complaints process found the Council’s assessment of Miss X and her child was inaccurate. The Council had not suitably remedied the injustice this caused. It has agreed to pay Miss X and her child £350 and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council’s social care assessment of her and her child was inaccurate and poorly conducted.
2. Miss X says this caused her and her child avoidable 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 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 X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
9. 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

What I found

Statutory complaints process

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.

What happened

14. Miss X has a child, whom I shall call B. To protect B’s identity and privacy I have included below only the information necessary to understand my findings.
15. In 2020, the Council completed an assessment of B. This was following a report unrelated to the matters complained about. However, during this time Miss X complained to the Council about how a particular social worker spoke to her over the phone.
16. In January 2021, the Council contacted Miss X after a referral from the police about an incident with Miss X’s ex-partner. The Council arranged to visit Miss X and B in their home to begin an assessment. The social worker assigned was the officer Miss X had complained about the previous year.
17. In February, the Council completed its assessment of B. It decided there was no need for children’s services to be involved at that time. It recommended that the Council provide support through its Early Help service.
18. The social worker spoke to Miss X and B on a video call in February, following which Miss X called the social worker unhappy with the handling of the call. Miss X also complained to the Council about the call that day.
19. Miss X complained the assessment contained inaccurate information and misrepresented both her and B’s views. She also complained that the Council had allocated the same social worker she had previously complained about to do the assessment.
20. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint at stage one and asked to proceed to stage two.
21. The stage two investigation found:
• The Council had produced an assessment that contained inaccuracies upon which the outcome and decision making was based. This complaint was therefore upheld.
• The Council did not fail to involve B’s father in the assessment because it did not need to have contacted him. This complaint was not upheld.
• It was unable to say whether the social worker had failed to explain the purpose of a video call and inappropriately insisted on talking to B alone given the conflicting accounts of the social worker and Miss X. The report made no finding about this complaint.
• There was no fault in allocating the same social worker previously complained about and that social worker was unaware of the first complaint so it could not have biased the assessment. This complaint was not upheld.
• The Council failed to follow the statutory complaints process. This complaint was upheld.
22. The stage two investigation recommended:
• staff refer to case records and prepare for interviews under the complaints process.
• the Council remind its managers about good practice in dealing with complaints at stage one.
• managers authorising assessment reports should ensure the accuracy of the contents.
23. Miss X asked the Council to escalate the complaint to a stage three panel. The panel considered the parts of the complaint which were not upheld or resulted in no finding.
24. The stage three panel confirmed the findings of the stage two investigation in relation to both complaints not upheld.
25. On the matter of the video call, the stage three panel decided to amend this from ‘no finding’ to ‘not upheld’. Its reasons for doing so were:
• The stage two concluded that without a recording of the conversation, it could not make a finding but this did not take into account the social worker’s note of the call in B’s file.
• There was no record the social worker failed to explain the reason for the call to B.
• There was no evidence the social worker insisted on speaking to B alone.
26. The stage three panel recommended the Council:
• check whether it contacted B’s father as part of the assessment, tell Miss X if it had, and record that Miss X had given permission for the Council to contact him.
• issue a letter of closure to B and Miss X in line with its usual process.

My findings

The statutory process

27. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
28. There is no evidence the stage two investigation was flawed, so I do not intend to reinvestigate its findings which the stage three panel confirmed.
29. I do find, however, the stage three panel acted with fault when it decided to change the stage two outcome of ‘no finding’ about the video call to ‘not upheld’. In doing so the panel considered the evidence of the social worker’s note of the call and gave this significant weight.
30. There is no evidence the panel considered whether it should also give weight to:
• The social worker’s note of Miss X’s return call in which she reported B was distressed by the call and asking the social worker to speak to B again to explain the reason for the call.
• Miss X’s immediate complaint about the call and its impact on B.
31. Both notes were made after the call by the same social worker. If the panel gave weight to the note of the video call, it should also have given weight to the note of Miss X’s return call unless there was a good reason not to. Not to do so was fault.
32. Miss X told me that she felt the stage two investigator and stage three panel implied she was lying by not upholding this part of her complaint. I can understand why she would feel this way following the panel’s decision.
33. However, I consider the stage two investigation outcome of ‘no finding’ was the right conclusion based on the available evidence. The social worker’s note of the call and interview for the stage two report presented a version of events in which B understood the reason for the call and was happy to speak to the social worker alone. Miss X’s return call to the social worker and her complaint the same day provide an account in which B was distressed by the call, spoke to the worker reluctantly, and did not understand its purpose.
34. The stage two investigator decided not to talk to B as part of the investigation. The report says this was to avoid causing B avoidable distress. This was a child-focused decision open to the investigator and I do not find fault with it.
35. In the absence of B’s account of the call or any independent recording or evidence, the investigator could not say, even on balance of probabilities, what happened. This is not fault. Nor does it mean Miss X was lying about what happened.
36. Although I have found the decision by the stage three panel was flawed, I do not consider it caused Miss X an injustice requiring a remedy.

Considering findings and recommendations

37. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence it has complied with the recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three panel. It apologised and added a note to B’s file to show Miss X did give consent to contact B’s father. It could not send the closure letter recommended without reopening the case however it provided a suitable equivalent in the letter accepting the findings of the stage three panel.
38. The Council also provided evidence it has taken the action recommended to improve its services. This includes:
• Issuing guidance for staff about participation in the stage two investigation process, including preparing for interviews
• Managers attending the Ombudsman’s training on effective complaint handling
• Senior managers checking stage one responses before sending to complainants
• A checklist for managers investigating complaints at stage one to ensure the response contains all the necessary details and findings
39. The Ombudsman welcomes these improvements to the complaints process.
40. However, there is no evidence the Council properly considered whether, based on the findings of the stage two investigation, it should provide a personal remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X and B from the faults identified beyond the written apology recommended.
41. The stage two investigation found the assessment was inaccurate and these inaccuracies informed the decision making and outcome. This included a finding that Miss X’s and B’s views were misrepresented. I do not consider an apology to be a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused. It undermined Miss X’s trust in the Council and caused her and B avoidable distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. In addition to the action already taken to remedy the injustice to Miss X and B, the Council has agreed to:
• pay Miss X £150 to acknowledge her avoidable distress; and
• pay B £200 to acknowledge her avoidable distress.
43. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
44. The Council will also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff that in considering the findings and recommendations of statutory children’s complaints investigations, the Council should consider whether a personal remedy is appropriate with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
45. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. There is some fault by the Council for which it had not provided a suitable remedy. The action recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman