Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council considered his complaint about child protection matters through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. We found the Council delayed in completing some of the statutory complaint procedure. It agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X to recognise the distress this caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council considered his complaint about child protection matters through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Mr X said the Council did not follow the statutory timescales, the stage three panel did not properly consider the concerns he raised about the stage two investigation and the Council has not completed the recommendations identified through the complaint procedure. Mr X said this caused him frustration and distress and he wanted the Council to recognise its errors and improve its service.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the documents Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him on the phone.
6. I considered the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Mr 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Child protection

8. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making a child protection plan that sets out how the child will be kept safe.

Children’s statutory complaint procedure

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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
13. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
14. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
15. 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 panel should consider the adequacy of the stage two and seek to resolve any outstanding complaints. It should not generally consider substantively new complaints that have not been considered at stage two. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

16. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
17. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Concurrent court action

18. Councils can refuse to consider a complaint if a complainant says they intend to take legal action or if investigating a complaint could prejudice concurrent court proceedings. However, after the proceedings have ended, a complainant can resubmit the complaint for the council to consider.

What happened

19. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not a detailed chronology.
20. A child that Mr X cared for made an allegation of harm against a member of Mr X’s family in October 2020. The Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into those allegations and subsequently Mr X’s children were made subject to a child protection plan.
21. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2020 about its involvement with his family. It said the Council was not taking in to account previous assessments of his parenting and that a social worker had told him the previous day he could not have contact with his partner and other children.
22. A Council social worker told Mr X he could have contact with his partner and children three days later. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and upheld his complaint about the no contact with his family.
23. Mr X made further complaints about the Council’s actions in the child protection investigation in February 2021 and the Council responded at stage one. Mr X was dissatisfied and requested a stage two investigation into both complaints.
24. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). They met with Mr X in March 2021 and agreed a statement of complaint with him at the end of April. It confirmed Mr X raised five points of complaint about how the Council’s social workers had conducted the safeguarding enquiries following the allegation. Mr X wanted the Council to improve its service, apologise and did not want the complaint to be held against him.
25. The IO considered all the available documentary evidence, interviewed key Council staff members, and Mr X. They did not interview one social worker as they were away from work for an extended period. They completed the investigation in May 2021 and the IP agreed with the IO’s findings. The investigation upheld that a social worker unnecessarily told Mr X he could not see his partner and children. It partly upheld one complaint and did not uphold three.
26. The IO recommended the Council should provide a written apology to Mr X for being told he could not see his children, and make service improvements around complaint handling and making safeguarding decisions.
27. The Council wrote an adjudication letter to Mr X in mid-August 2021. It agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. It did not send Mr X the IO’s report until November 2021.
28. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked for a stage three panel to consider his complaint. The Council advised Mr X that court action had begun in relation to the points he complained about. It decided therefore to pause the complaints process while the court proceedings concluded.
29. Following the end of the court proceedings Mr X asked the Council for a stage three panel in July 2023. He set out his points of complaint in writing and said:
• he disagreed with the outcome of the complaints that were not upheld;
• the Council intentionally delayed the complaints procedure; and
• he wanted the stage three panel to take in to account additional issues that had arisen since the original stage two investigation two years previously.
30. The stage three panel considered Mr X’s complaint. It said it would only consider any outstanding or unresolved issued relating to the stage two investigation and would not consider any new complaints or information. It confirmed it considered Mr X’s written representations and the panel Chair had met with Mr X to explain the process, scope and limitation of the stage three hearing. The panel changed one finding from not upheld to partially upheld as a social worker had delayed visiting Mr X on one occasion. It found the Council had delayed in providing its adjudication letter at stage two for ten weeks after it received the IO report, and did not provide the IO report to Mr X until November 2021.
31. The panel recommended the Council should:
• complete statutory children’s complaints within the timescales outlined in the guidance;
• ensure case records specify whether contact was made via email, text or call;
• review emails it had received from Mr X to identify if any complaints had not been acknowledged or responded to;
• provide Mr X a ‘definitive view’ on what action the Council would take, or propose to take if Mr X arranged for his child to have unsupervised contact with the family member against who the allegation was made; and
• provide an apology for the significant delay in the stage two report and letter of adjudication, and for the partially upheld complaint.
32. The Council agreed with the panel’s finding and recommendations. It wrote to Mr X with its response. It said it reviewed Mr X’s emails but did not find any matters it had not responded to, and Mr X could raise a new complaint if he had new matters to raise. It set out the improvements it was making to its complaint handling process and case recording. It apologised for the delays Mr X experienced.
33. In relation to the recommendation to provide a ‘definitive view’ of future interventions, the Council said if Mr X wished for his child to have unsupervised contact with the family member against which the allegation had been made, it would need to review the safety plan arrangements agreed during the child protection investigation. It said Mr X would need to discuss this with the Council before making any changes to ensure the child continued to be safeguarded.
34. I have reviewed the evidence the Council sent in response to my enquiries which showed how it had implemented the recommended service improvements as a result of Mr X’s complaint.

My findings

35. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint through the statutory procedure. The stage two investigation was thorough, robust and well-evidenced. The recommendations logically followed on from its findings. It found the Council at fault in how it managed some of Mr X’s case and made appropriate recommendations to remedy the injustice caused and improve the Council’s service.
36. The Council is entitled to pause complaint consideration where there is concurrent court action about the same matters. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint once the court action ended. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
37. The stage three panel cannot investigate substantively new complaints as Mr X requested it to do. Its purpose was to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation. It considered Mr X’s representations. It did not find fault with how the stage two investigation had been conducted but did make additional recommendations. It found the Council delayed in completing the stage two process and made appropriate recommendations.
38. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint, beyond the delay already identified, and therefore the overall findings of the children’s statutory complaints procedure can be relied upon.
39. I considered the evidence the Council provided that it had implemented the service improvement recommendations. I am satisfied it carried out the recommendations resulting from Mr X’s complaint.
40. Mr X complained the Council had not given him a definitive view on ongoing interventions with his family. The Council provided an adequate response and advised Mr X it would have to consider the circumstances at the time. We cannot investigate things that have not yet occurred. If Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions in the future he can raise a new complaint.

Injustice caused to Mr X

41. The delay following the stage two investigation caused Mr X distress. He had to wait for 145 working days to receive the stage two investigation report, which is 80 days longer than the guidance specifies. This also caused Mr X uncertainty about whether his complaint could have been considered at stage three sooner, had the Council acted without fault. The Council had already apologised for this delay. I have made a further recommendation below.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within one month of this decision the Council will pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s delay in completing stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure.
43. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to my recommendation to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman