Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s social care involvement with her family and its poor communication and record keeping. This was investigated under the statutory complaints procedure. We considered the findings were fair with appropriate recommendations. But we found fault as there was significant delay by the Council in the process, with an incorrect approach to timescales. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice and to take action to prevent recurrence of fault identified.

The complaint

1. Miss X made a complaint to the Council mainly raising issues with the actions of social workers. This was investigated under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman highlighted her dissatisfaction with the Council’s general poor communication with her throughout and she said it failed to record or document notes adequately. She said the whole process caused distress and frustration to her and her family. She wanted the Council to change how it works and improve practices within the service.

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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

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. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

Background

14. Northamptonshire Children’s Trust delivers children’s social care on behalf of West Northamptonshire Council.
15. At the time of the complaint to the Council, social services became involved with Miss X’s family due to concerns about her daughter, after a police referral about her partner and ex-partner. Alongside this, private proceedings had been taking place relating to her daughter’s contact with her father (Miss X’s ex-partner).

What happened – Miss X’s complaint

16. On 7 July 2021, the Council received Miss X’s formal complaint, mainly about the actions of social workers.
17. On 15 July, the Council formally responded to Miss X at Stage One, acknowledging and partially upholding some of the issues.
18. On 27 July, Miss X requested escalation to Stage Two.
19. On 26 August, Miss X virtually met with the Investigating Officer (“IO”) and Independent Person (“IP”) to agree the record of complaint. On 1 November, Miss X finalised her statement of complaint.
20. On 7 March 2022, the Council received the Stage Two IO’s and IP’s reports.
21. On 28 March, the Council sent these, along with its own response, to Miss X.
22. On 9 May, Miss X formally escalated her complaint to Stage Three. The Independent Panel (“Panel”) met on 22 July.
23. Miss X’s complaints and the Stage Two IO and Stage Three Panel conclusions for each were as follows:
1. An assessment had been biased towards her ex-partner.
• IO - not upheld. The Panel said it should be partially upheld. The case records did not fully reflect information provided by Miss X. The Panel noted after speaking to the IO, it was apparent they did not include all their reasoning for their view in the report.
2. Evidence she provided to the social worker had not been considered properly.
• IO - partially upheld. The Panel said it should be upheld. Miss X’s texts had been appropriately considered and although it would not have changed the outcome, the texts should have been added to the case file.
3. A social worker had visited Miss X’s daughter at school without permission.
• IO - upheld. The Panel did not discuss this.
4. The social worker had unreasonable expectations for Miss X to be at home for unannounced visits and they had forced their way into her mother’s home.
• IO - partially not upheld, partially no finding made. A case note showed Miss X and social care had agreed visits would take place after 6pm. The IO was unable to speak to the social worker about the alleged forced entry so it could not take a view. The Panel agreed.
5. Information the social worker had provided to the court was inappropriate.
• IO – not upheld. The Panel said it should be upheld as evidence showed a social worker said proposed contact arrangements were unrealistic and not child focused.
6. The Public Law Outline (PLO – initiated by the Council when there are concerns about a child’s safety) processes has not been explained to her.
• IO - not upheld. The Panel agreed with this finding.
7. There were many errors in reports produced for court.
• IO - partially upheld. Miss X had the opportunity at each meeting to give her views. But there were spelling and grammatical mistakes which Miss X had not challenged. The Panel agreed.
8. A meeting had stopped because her current partner was being aggressive. Miss X disagreed with this.
• IO - not upheld. The Panel agreed.
24. The Panel concluded there was no injustice or maladministration evidenced in the case. It agreed with the recommendations made by the IO for the Council to:
• Ensure all information provided by Miss X be uploaded to the case file,
• Acknowledge and apologise to Miss X for the lack of engagement by one of the social workers which led to complaint d) resulting in no finding, and
• Remind all social care staff of the need to ensure reports and records are accurate and are checked for grammatical and spelling errors.
25. The Panel made further recommendations for the Council to ensure:
• That minutes of meetings and assessments are provided to attendees in order that any challenges in accuracy can be submitted. This was because Miss X was not given the opportunity to challenge relevant documentation,
• That all staff requested to comply with the progress of a statutory investigation and make themselves available to do so, and
• Reports produced by an IO should be comprehensive and include all relevant information to rationale for findings.
26. On 24 August, the Council sent its final response to Miss X. It accepted the Panel’s findings and all recommendations. The Council said there was clear learning that needed to be implemented and it apologised to Miss X for her poor experience.
27. In September, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She highlighted her dissatisfaction with the Council’s poor communication and poor recordkeeping.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

28. The Council outlined Stage Two timescales started when Miss X finalised her complaint in November 2021. It explained the delays were primarily due officer availability and efforts to speak to a social worker who was on long-term absence. It said it apologised and communicated this to Miss X throughout the process.
29. In respect of the recommendations outlined above, the Council said:
• It had added a case note to the file to summarise the oversight of not uploading Miss X’s texts which, in her view, was evidence against her ex-partner.
• It provided an apology, but it is not clear if this was sent directly to Miss X. I note the Council did make a general apology to Miss X within its Stage Three response to her.
• Improvement work had been completed with managers and staff regarding the Quality Assurance processes of all documents and assessments.
• It was working with Business Support colleagues to ensure procedures were improved so minutes of meetings and assessments could be sent out efficiently and in plenty of time.
• Since the initial complaint, it had sent further reminders to staff in its newsletter a reminder of the statutory complaint arrangements. It provided a copy of a newsletter.
• All reports are quality assured by the complaints team for factual accuracy and completeness. It provided a copy of the Council’s ‘Terms of Reference for Individual Investigations’ it uses for each complaint with IOs and IPs.

Analysis

30. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. After reviewing all documents, I am satisfied there does not appear to be obvious flaw in the investigation process that would undermine the conclusions reached. The Panel notes show Miss X’s complaints were appropriately considered, resulting in some findings being changed to upheld.
31. On balance, I am satisfied the Council has completed the actions it agreed to in the final response to Miss X’s complaint.
32. However, the timescales of the investigation did not meet statutory time limits, most notably at Stage Two. Miss X’s request in July 2021 should have been completed by the end of October. It took until March 2022, a delay of about four months. There was a further delay of a month after Miss X’s Stage Three request in May 2022 as it was not completed until August.
33. There had already been initial delay with the appointment of an IP due to availability. I acknowledge Miss X may have delayed confirming her complaint after, but I have not seen evidence the Council took action to try and progress this in that three month gap.
34. Further to the above, in the Council’s ‘Terms of Reference’ document, it states “The start date of the Stage Two statutory time scales will be the date the Statement of Complaint is agreed by the Complainant”. The Council repeated this to me with Miss X’s complaint. This is not correct. The statutory guidance referred to in Paragraph 10 says it starts when the complainant requests it, and councils must act swiftly when handling complaints. It did not do so in this case. The Council’s approach adds avoidable delay unnecessarily and needs to be amended, as suggested below. The significant delay in the complaints process is fault, and caused distress and frustration for Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
36. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X in writing and pay her £125 for the delays she experienced in the complaints process; and
• Amend any policy or protocol document to ensure it correctly states when Stage Two timescales start within the statutory complaints procedures; when it is requested. This change should be sent to all staff involved in this procedure.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I found fault with the Council causing injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed with the recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman