Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in providing support to her and daughter, C, when they experienced difficulties. She said the Council victimised her and failed treat her in a transparent and fair manner. We found the Council delayed excessively in dealing with her complaint through the three stage statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £200 and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that the London Borough of Camden (the Council) failed to offer Miss B sufficient support to her and her daughter, when her daughter experienced difficulties and her behaviour deteriorated. Miss B also complained that the Council victimised her, treated her with a lack of honesty and integrity. The Council also delayed in completing the three stage complaints procedure. This caused her significant distress and affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
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

What I found

Child in need

6. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
7. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled

Child protection

8. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
9. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the council convenes a Child Protection Conference which will decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
10. After the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences (RCPC) to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
11. An RCPC should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
12. After the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to:
• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.
13. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.

Statutory children’s complaints procedure

14. 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.
15. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.

What happened

19. Miss B is a single parent living with her daughter C.
20. The Council intervened in early 2020 following concerns about C’s behaviour and Miss B’s mental health. It considered C was a child in need and provided support to both her and Miss B. C started some counselling and the Council referred Miss B to both mental health and mediation services. It also provided financial support for Miss B to purchase a bed and mattress for C.
21. C’s behaviour continued to cause concern. She went missing overnight on several occasions, her school attendance was poor, and the Council had concerns she was at risk of sexual exploitation.
22. In September 2020 following a suicide attempt by C and concerns about Miss B’s mental health, the Council held an initial strategy discussion. The mental health crisis team said Miss B met their threshold for intervention. The Council decided that C had experienced significant harm and would continue to do so without intervention, so it agreed to carry out section 47 enquiries and hold an ICPC.
23. The ICPC, held in October 2020, concluded C was out of parental control and it had concerns about Miss B’s mental health and boundary setting. It put a child protection plan in place.
24. At a core group meeting in November 2020 Miss B said she felt she was getting the right support from the professional network and that things were improving at home. C also said things were improving at school and home.
25. In December 2020 the Council noted that C was refusing social worker visits and Miss B was becoming hostile to social worker intervention. The Council carried out another child sexual exploitation risk assessment and considered taking the case to care pathways panel to consider possibly accommodating C. It also referred the family to mental health services.
26. In February 2021 neither Miss B nor C wished to attend the core group meeting. The Council held a professionals’ meeting instead. The meeting noted that Miss B’s mental health needs had not been addressed and the mental health service had closed the case. It noted concerns over C’s school attendance and that Miss B was inconsistent in terms of requiring support.
27. Miss B was unhappy with her social worker and asked for details about progress with a furniture grant she had requested. The social worker left the Council and a new one was allocated (SW2) in March 2021.
28. C refused to meet SW2 and Miss B complained about SW2’s attempts to contact her and C and lack of notice of a core group meeting. Miss B also complained about the lack of progress with the furniture grant. The Council said that the visits had to happen as there was a child protection plan in place but acknowledged that ‘things have been a little lost in the handover’ between social workers.
29. At the end of March 2021, the social worker said the initial grant application by the previous social worker had been done on the wrong form. She had now made two grant applications on the correct form and was looking to make several more, but some charities required her income details.
30. Miss B and C did not attend the next core group meeting and SW2 was unsuccessful in trying to meet C. Neither of them wanted any more social work involvement.
31. In April 2021 SW2 said one charity had offered vouchers from a specific shop for Miss B to buy a wardrobe. Miss B complained that SW2 was assuming she was not trustworthy enough to receive cash and had not asked her or C what their preference was for furniture. SW2 explained that this was what the charity had provided, and it did not give cash.
32. C explored the possibility of moving abroad to live with her father. Miss B said she was seeking help for C but did not wish to work with the Council. SW2 referred the case for mediation for a third time.
33. In June 2021 the Council agreed to provide money under its section 17 powers to purchases a wardrobe from their preferred shop.
34. In June 2021 a RCPC was held. SW2 recommended the case be closed as she had not met with C and neither she nor Miss B had engaged with the process for several months. The conference noted that there had been some progress in the relationship between C and Miss B and considered C was no longer at risk of significant harm. It decided to step down the case to a child in need. SW2 attempted to visit C in three occasions in July and August 2021 but was unsuccessful. The Council closed the case in September 2021.

Formal complaint

35. On 26 March 2021 Miss B made a formal complaint about the delay in providing financial assistance for a new wardrobe, a lack of a proper handover between social workers and poor communication from SW2.
36. The Council responded on 12 April 2021. It apologised for not informing Miss B that the first social worker had left. It confirmed that SW2 would be progressing the grant applications.
37. On 11 June 2021 Miss B asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council appointed an investigating officer (IO) and an Independent person (IP) on 16 and 23 September 2021 who met with Miss B on 14 October 2021. During this meeting it was apparent that Miss B had additional complaints arising from the RCPC in June 2021 which had not been dealt with at stage one. The Council paused stage two of the process to enable it to respond to Miss B’s additional complaints at stage one. It sent a response on 11 November 2021. Miss B requested to escalate those also to stage two on the same day.
38. The IO agreed a statement of complaint with Miss B on 9 December 2021, then in January 2022 read the files and interviewed staff who remained at the Council. They produced their final report on 11 February 2022.
39. Out of 25 complaints the IO upheld three:
• There was poor communication about core group meetings.
• There was a lack of a proper handover between social workers and an apology had already been offered for this.
• Staff did not learn how to pronounce or spell Miss B and C’s names properly.
40. The IO did not make any recommendations for financial compensation but noted a concern that a lack of case recording had led to a number of inconclusive findings (eight complaints had no finding).
41. The Council sent its adjudication letter on 7 April 2022 and apologised for the three upheld complaints. On 8 April 2022 Miss B requested her complaints go to stage three of the procedure.
42. The Review Panel was held on 12 August 2022. It changed two of the ‘no findings’ to not upheld and two to upheld: no evidence from the case records to show staff informed Miss B about the complaints process or that they offered her support when C went missing. The Panel did not recommend any compensation and noted the case was now closed to children’s services. It raised concern that C’s voice had not been included anywhere in the process and that there were gaps in the case recording leading to inconclusive findings.
43. The Council responded to Miss B on 28 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in writing to her and offered her £60 but agreed with the findings of the Review Panel.
44. Miss B then complained to us. She was unhappy with the findings on each complaint and asked for more information/clarification. She also felt she had been victimised and inaccurate information was held about her on the Council’s files.

Analysis

45. I understand that Miss B has been through a very stressful experience over the past few years. However, child protection processes are inevitably distressing and difficult for the families involved and that in itself is not a reason to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Child protection process

46. From the information provided I consider the Council took prompt and appropriate action to respond to the concerns raised about C’s behaviour and Miss B’s struggle to cope. In early 2020 it considered C was a child in need. It referred her to counselling services, the family to mediation services and Miss B to mental health services. It also offered financial assistance with purchasing a bed. Later that year when C’s mental health deteriorated the Council convened a strategy discussion, undertook section 47 enquiries and held an ICPC. It then held regular core group meetings until early 2021 when both Miss B and C started to disengage with the process.
47. The Council referred Miss B and C for mediation on three occasions between 2019 and 2021. It also referred Miss B for mental health support on several occasions and C for counselling. It made two grant applications for support with furniture and in the end made a cash payment rather than the vouchers offered by the charity. I have noted that Miss B indicated in November 2020 that she was satisfied with the support provided.
48. I have not found evidence that the Council victimised or treated Miss B unfavourably. In trying to assist Miss B with parenting C to enable her to remain living at home, the Council fully explored her relationship with C. When it raised concerns, it explained why and provided evidence to support stepping the case up to child protection. This was clearly challenging for Miss B, but I have not identified fault in the action the Council took.

Furniture assistance

49. However, there was some delay by the initial social worker in dealing with Miss B’s request for a furniture grant. Once SW2 took over, these applications were successfully progressed, and the complaints process found no fault. Miss B checked progress with the first social worker in February 2021, so I assume a short period of time had already elapsed, and SW2 obtained furniture vouchers within a month. I have concluded this process took several months longer than it should have done which caused Miss B frustration and inconvenience.

Handover/communication

50. The Council accepted fault in the lack of a proper handover between social workers and some poor communication with Miss B at points. I agree with this conclusion but note communication was hampered by Miss B and C’s reluctance to engage with the Council from early 2021.

Complaint process

51. The complaints process considered Miss B’s complaints comprehensively but there was some delay in completing the three stages. The Council responded to the first stage one complaint within 11 working days, which was well within the statutory timescale of 20 working days.
52. The Council delayed in progressing Miss B’s complaint to stage two. Miss B requested escalation on 11 June 2021, but the Council did not appoint an IO until 16 September 2021. Taking into account the pause for the additional stage one investigation, the whole stage two process took 30 weeks, well outside the 13 week statutory timescale.
53. There was also some delay in convening the stage three Review Panel, taking 19 weeks rather than six. The Council also took seven weeks rather than four to send its reply following the stage three panel. It recognised this three week delay with a payment of £60.
54. The total delay in considering Miss B’s complaint through the statutory three stage process was approximately 33 weeks. This was fault which caused Miss B frustration and distress.
55. I note the Review Panel raised a concern that C’s voice was absent from the complaints process. However, given that C was nearly 17 by the time the stage two process started and the fact that the majority of the complaints related to Miss B’s interactions with the Council, I do not consider this was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss B by the delays in the complaints process, I recommended that the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision, increased the payment of £60 to £200.
57. Additionally, I recommended within three months of the date of my final decision, that it reviews the operation of its three stage complaints process to identify where it can make changes to prevent delays.
58. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman