Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not offer an appropriate financial remedy after considering and upholding all her complaints through the statutory children’s complaints process. We consider the findings of the Council’s investigation were fair and appropriate. It accepted it had significantly delayed the process, with poor communication. There was a further element to Ms X’s complaint raised after Stage Two. The Council did not offer a remedy for any further potential injustice addressing this as it said this was not part of its investigation. The Council has already made service improvements. The Council has accepted our recommendation for a revised financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s distress caused by the matters the Council did investigate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained to the Council it had failed to provide support or appropriately safeguard her half-siblings. She did not feel listened to or taken seriously even when she raised many reports for their welfare, and the Council did not give adequate assistance to herself. This was investigated under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council upheld all of her complaints.
2. Ms X complains to us that the financial remedy offered by the Council does not sufficiently reflect the injustice caused to her. She says some of her concerns were not fully investigated as the Council did not have the records from her Subject Access Request (“SAR”) at that point. Ms X says the avoidable faults with the Council has had a significant negative impact on her mental health and wellbeing. Also, excessive delays in the complaints process added further distress and frustration to her.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have not investigated part of Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay and handling of her SAR. It is the Ombudsman’s position that the Information Commissioner’s Office is normally the appropriate body to consider complaints about the processing of SARs.
4. After Ms X received information in response to her SAR from the Council, she then learned of matters which she was not previously aware of. Whilst linked, these are new issues which the Council has confirmed have not been considered under the complaints process. I have not taken a view on any potential injustice from this point, as these are separate matters that the Council should be given the chance to investigate before we consider them. Ms X can make a new complaint about this, should she wish to do so. Paragraphs 38-43 expand on this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I discussed the complaint with Ms X, and Mrs Y (her advocate), and considered their views.
12. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
13. Ms X, Mrs Y, 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

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. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The Ombudsman has published ‘Guide for practitioners’ (revised February 2022) about our approach to complaints about the statutory children’s complaints process.

What happened

19. I have summarised below an overview of key relevant events. This is not intended to be a detailed account of each communication between the parties or an exhaustive chronology of everything that happened.
20. On 28 April 2021, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council. She raised concerns her views were not being taken into account relating to the safety and well-being of her half siblings.
21. On 6 July 2021, Ms X and Mrs Y (her advocate) had a virtual meeting with the Council about the complaint. Ms X added she felt let down herself by social care throughout the years and was looking for answers about her own childhood. Ms X said she made a Subject Access Request (“SAR”) for her records at the suggestion of the Council.
22. On 20 August 2021, the Council responded at Stage One. It said it would address her initial complaint relating to her half siblings and the issues she raised about herself directly would be a separate aspect to her complaint. It agreed some actions going forward, including the social worker being spoken to and work they would carry out with the family.
23. On 5 October 2021, Mrs Y requested for the complaint to move to Stage Two. The Independent Officer (“IO”) and Independent Person (“IP”) were allocated on 6 January 2022. Ms X signed an agreed statement of complaint on 21 February. The Council said the deadline for its Stage Two response would be 26 May.
24. On 11 May 2022, the Council received the IO and IP reports. On 16 June, the Council sent its Stage Two response to Ms X and Mrs Y.
25. Six main areas of complaint were considered:
1. Action had not been appropriately taken to four specific safeguarding referrals made by Ms X in 2021. Each one was investigated separately.
2. A fully informed assessment of the welfare of her half-siblings was not completed as Ms X had not been consulted or involved as an appropriate family member.
3. Ms X did not receive support to address the impact the safeguarding issues had on her own well-being and she did not feel her concerns were listened to.
4. Ms X had not been able to contribute to any child protection planning or processes in relation to her half-siblings.
5. The Council had failed to respond to Ms X’s SAR, which she wanted so she could understand her history.
6. There was excessive delay with the Council’s handling of the complaints process.
26. The IO upheld all parts of her complaints and identified further recommendations. The IP and Adjudicating Officer agreed with the outcomes. The Council apologised to Ms X for their failings and her poor experience, and recognised there was clear learning that needed to be implemented. It said it had introduced a new model into the services to ensure a whole family approach when dealing with safeguarding concerns, that Ms X’s SAR should be acted on without delay, and Ms X should be given a full debrief from a senior officer. It offered £500 as a remedy to acknowledge her distress and an additional £100 to recognise her time and trouble with the complaint.
27. On 26 July 2022, Mrs Y requested to move to Stage Three. Ms X was dissatisfied with the response to part e). In the meantime, Ms X had received SAR information from other agencies. She had now learnt significant information about herself which strengthened her view that social care did not support her through her childhood which had a lasting effect on her.
28. Ms X later received the Council’s records for her SAR. She raised further concerns relating to the contents within it. It showed the Council’s alleged lack of involvement with her from a young age. She said this added to the fault and injustice she experienced throughout her life. Also, the Council had not been able to consider this at Stage Two as the SAR information was not available to the IO at the time. Had it done so, she believed the outcome would have been different.
29. The Council apologised for a misunderstanding about complaints progressing to Stage Three upon request of the complainant. It clarified the Stage Three Independent Panel (“Panel”) would consider the appropriateness of the Stage Two investigation in relation to the complaints in the agreed statement of complaint. It was not its role to re-investigate or consider substantive new complaints at this point.
30. It recognised Ms X felt she had further injustice that needed to be remedied, but the Council’s remedies had been restricted to matters considered at Stage Two. It was the Council’s view that the impact she was now referring to, had a much greater scope than what was investigated. It proposed the matters about her childhood experience and social services involvement during that time, be taken forward as a new complaint. Ms X confirmed her request for Stage Three.
31. On 17 September 2022, the Stage Three review Panel meeting was held.
32. On 11 October, the Council agreed with the Panel’s recommendations and sent its response to Ms X and Mrs Y to confirm it would ensure they were carried out. The Panel recommended:
1. Ms X be offered a meeting to discuss the content of her own records.
2. The Council considered how it would ensure family members are considered as a whole unit and not separate from one another, even if they live in different households.
3. The Council considered Ms X’s need for ongoing counselling and therapeutic support and to make an appropriate contribution towards those ongoing costs.
4. The Complaints Service ensures all young people are advised of their entitlement to support from the Advocacy Service when making a complaint.
5. Ms X be provided with advice on pursuing financial compensation for failures on the part of the Council.
33. In January 2023, Ms Y, on Ms X’s behalf, complained to us. She said Ms X felt the financial remedy offered was not appropriate to the injustice caused to her by the Council.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

34. The Council confirmed it did not investigate Ms X’s concerns regarding the content of her SAR after her Stage Three escalation. It said it could have paused the Stage Two investigation until the information was available, but it would have further delayed it and Ms X already said she did not want to delay it further. In response to my draft decision, Ms X said she was not aware she could have waited and was advised by the Council to carry on the process. The Council accepted the outcome could have been different for Ms X if it had paused the Stage Two and it advised it was willing to undertake a further Stage Two investigation.
35. The Council agreed Ms X’s complaint handling took a significant amount of time and it was unacceptable. It noted Mrs Y had to chase the complaints team on numerous occasions.
36. The Council has explained how it had met each of the agreed Panel recommendations, including the new family safeguarding model and the lump sum it had paid to Ms X at her request for ongoing counselling. It said there had been a full restructure of its Complaints Services. Training had been given, including ensuring young people are advised of advocacy services, with processes and timeframes being routinely monitored. It said a new system had been implemented to record all compaints which has improved visibility and accountability of all cases. The Council had initially advised Ms X to approach its insurers to make a complaint for a financial remedy, and apologised this was incorrect. It recommended she seek legal advice.
37. It originally offered a financial remedy of £600 to her (£500 to acknowledge distress as a result of its faults and £100 for her time and trouble). It has now offered a revised amount of an additional £600 for the delays. I took this as the original £500 and £100, plus the £600, so a total of £1,200.

Analysis

New matters

38. 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 reports and Panel notes show each of Ms X’s complaints in her statement of complaint were appropriately considered and were all upheld.
39. I recognise Ms X disagrees and strongly feels the Council’s delay in processing her SAR impacted on the investigation into her complaint. I will not take a view specifically on the handling of the SAR as stated in Paragraphs 3 and 8. However I note the Council’s scope into the SAR part of the complaint was its failure to respond to it, which it upheld.
40. The Stage Two was completed in June 2022, it wasn’t until July when Ms X came to learn about the alleged lack of social care input from a young age after a significant event. Whilst this added to her original concerns and was not new to the Council; this was new information for Ms X herself. She could not have complained sooner specifically about this, and it was not part of the Council’s original investigation.
41. The contents of her SAR and any potential further historical fault and longstanding impact to Ms X is a separable matter that the Council has not had an opportunity to investigate or resolve. The law says councils should usually have a chance to respond before we consider it. Therefore, I agree this part should be a new complaint and the Council is in a better position to investigate this through the three stage process.
42. It is our expectation that if Ms X formally requests it, the Council should begin a Stage Two investigation into her further complaint about matters she learned of after she received her SARs.
43. Considering these circumstances, I am satisfied with the Council’s approach and reasoning to this part, and I note it advised Ms X of its position previously. I will not take a view on the new matters raised after the SAR records were available. However, I can consider the impact on the Council’s general handling of her complaint and the remedies offered in response to the matters it addressed in its investigation, as below.

Delay

44. The Council acknowledged its handling of Ms X’s complaint was unacceptable, which I agree with. It spanned over one and a half years with delays throughout, including with communication. The Stage One response was 60 days late and the Stage Two was 110 days late, which is notably outside of the legal time limits for the statutory children’s complaint process. On balance, I note Stage Three was completed within required timescales.
45. Further to the above, the Council stated the Stage Two timescale started from the date the statement of complaint was agreed (in this case, February 2022). The Council repeated this to me in response to my enquiries. This is not correct. The pieces of guidance referred to in Paragraphs 14 and 18 say it starts from the date the complainant requests Stage Two in writing, and councils must act swiftly when handling complaints. It did not do so here. The Council’s approach added further delay unnecessarily and needs to be amended, which I have recommended later. The significant delay in the complaints process is fault, and caused distress and frustration for Ms X.

Communication and Complaint Handling

46. I have seen evidence of poor communication by the Council throughout the complaints process, which it has apologised for in its responses to Ms X. The Council accepted Mrs Y had to chase it on numerous occasions. I note there were long gaps between responses or acknowledgements, with incorrect advice or information given about the complaints process itself or progressing through the stages. This is fault, causing additional time and trouble within the complaints process.

Injustice and Remedies

47. In response to my enquiries, the Council revised its position and has offered Ms X a total of £1,200 to recognise her injustice. I have noted how this is broken down and I’ve taken into account our published Guidance on Remedies (“GOR”):
• £500 to recognise Ms X’s avoidable distress as a result of the faults. Whilst this is the upper limit as recommended in our GOR, I have considered additional relevant circumstances for this case. This includes Ms X’s personal vulnerability, her age, and the nature of her concerns and how they affected other family members. I recommend £700 is more appropriate to address this injustice.
• £100 for time and trouble. There were some flaws with how the Council handled progression of the complaint and some misinformation about the process, which added additional frustration. In my view this is appropriate to remedy this.
• £600 to recognise significant delay in complaint handling. I welcome the Council’s additional offer. This exceeds what is recommended in our GOR and is sufficient for this injustice.
48. Our recommended payments are symbolic, not purely financial. However, if Ms X is seeking financial compensation against the Council, this would need to be pursued through the courts. It is not our role to assess or award compensation.
49. The Council has explained the action it has taken to learn from Ms X’s complaint and improve its services and complaints handling. I am satisfied these actions are appropriate to help prevent recurrence of the wider identified faults, and the other Panel recommendations have been appropriately addressed.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. The Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
51. Within one month of the final decision:
• Pay Ms X a total of £1,400 to recognise her distress, her time and trouble, and significant delays within the complaints process.
52. Within three months of the final decision:
• Amend any policy or protocol document to ensure it correctly states when Stage Two timescales start within the statutory complaints process; when it is requested in writing. This change should be sent to all staff involved in this procedure.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I found fault with the Council causing injustice to Ms 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