Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions linked to its independent investigation into her complaints about its children’s services department. The Council has already agreed to some fault and offered an apology to remedy Mrs X’s injustice. We found additional fault in how long it took to address Mrs X’s complaints. We also considered that the injustice of the distress and time and trouble Mrs X experienced required a remedy greater than an apology. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to her and share good practice guidance with relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council disagreed with the findings of an independent review panel which looked into her complaints about its children’s services department. She says that because the Council did not accept the panel’s financial recommendations, it has not properly considered the injustice caused to her.
2. Mrs X says this has added to the distress and frustration she already felt at the situation.

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 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)
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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I investigated the injustice caused by the complaints the Council agreed fault on (complaints 1, 2 and 5), as explained in the Council’s letter sent by its adjudicating officer. This is explained later in the decision.
7. I did not re-investigate complaints 3, 4a) or 4b). These have been investigated as part of the process and there is no need to re-investigate them now.
8. I also investigated delays in the statutory complaints process at stage two.
9. During my investigation, it became clear there were also delays at stage three of the statutory complaint process, so I included this in my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also considered information provided by the Council.
11. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Children Act 1989 Complaints Procedure

12. The law sets out a three-stage statutory procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services.
13. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. Paragraph 3.1.2 sets out the timescales for the procedure.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. 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 investigate the complaint and an independent person (IP). The IP is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
16. 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.
17. The adjudicating officer (AO) should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
18. 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.
19. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
20. 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.

What happened

21. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
22. At the end of December 2022, Mrs X complained to the Council. She was unhappy with various actions taken by its children’s services department.
23. At the end of January 2023, the Council responded. It said it had recorded her complaint in line with the statutory process. It invited Mrs X to escalate her complaint to the second stage of the process, explaining her reasons for escalation.
24. On 3 February 2023, the Council recorded Mrs X’s stage two escalation request.
25. Throughout February and into early March 2023, internal communications at the Council discussed how to best move the matter forwards. The Council decided it should offer Mrs X a mediation meeting outside of the formal complaint procedure. It did not advise Mrs X of this.
26. On 3 March 2023, Mrs X contacted the Council to ask what was happening with her complaint and asked to go straight to stage three of the process.
27. The Council responded to Mrs X on 7 March 2023. The officer apologised that she had not been updated about the progress of her complaint and explained the Council wanted to try and offer a way forward outside of the formal procedure. The officer also apologised it had taken much longer to try and organise this than expected. The officer explained the stage two investigation must take place and could not be skipped before moving to stage three.
28. A mediation meeting held on 14 March 2023 was not successful. The Council made efforts to find an IO and IP to investigate the complaint at stage two.
29. Mrs X again chased the Council on 21 March 2023 to ask whether she should chase the IO and IP to get the process moving. The Council told Mrs X the delays up to this point were not the fault of the IP or IO and apologised the process was taking longer than she had hoped.
30. The Council said Mrs X could include this delay when setting out her complaints to the IO and IP if she wished. Mrs X then later included this. It became complaint five investigated by the IO.

The complaint investigation process

31. The IO and IP began their investigation at the beginning of April 2023. The investigation finished at the end of July 2023.
32. The IO produced a draft complaint report on 2 August 2023. She sent a final version of her report to the Council towards the end of August 2023. The report set out its responses to the desired outcomes Mrs X had identified at the beginning of the process. It made two recommendations.
33. The IP finalised her report at the beginning of September 2023. She supported the findings and conclusions set out in the IO’s report.
34. The IP commented on the ‘significant delays’ in the stage two investigation process being completed. She said it had not been done in statutory timescales. The statement of complaint was agreed on 24 April 2023 but the first interview did not take place until 21 June 2023. Two further interviews were then done towards the end of July 2023.
35. After the IO sent her report, a senior officer at the Council acted as the Adjudicating Officer (AO). On 16 November 2023, she sent Mrs X a letter with the Council’s view on the IO’s report.
36. Mrs X emailed the Council on 5 December 2023 to say she was still unhappy with the complaint response.
37. On 26 January 2024, the Council emailed Mrs X. It apologised that it had not acknowledged her stage three request and said this was due to an internal administration error. The Council explained that it would now organise a stage three review panel (the review panel) to review her complaint.
38. The review panel hearing was held on 26 March 2024.
39. The review panel sent its report to the Council at the beginning of April 2024.
40. On 15 May 2024, as part of the statutory process, another senior officer at the Council (Officer J) responded to the review panel’s report. Officer J sent a letter to Mrs X explaining what the Council’s position on the panel’s review and recommendations were. The Council explained this was its final position on the matter and signposted Mrs X to the Ombudsman.

The complaints investigated

41. The IO identified five different complaints and stated in the report whether she upheld or did not uphold each identified complaint.
42. I have set out complaints 1, 2 and 5 below. I have given a brief outline of what the outcome was for that individual complaint as it went through each part of the process. I have not referred to complaints 3, 4a) and 4b) as these are not part of my investigation.

Complaint 1

43. That Mrs X’s sensitive personal medical information was included in a social care report when it should not have been.
44. The IO’s report found that complaint 1 should be upheld.
45. The AO’s letter agreed. She apologised the sensitive information included in the report was outdated and should not have been there. She confirmed it was important the Council included relevant information. She also said it had a duty to ensure information was current and ‘absolutely required’ as part of the assessment.
46. The review panel did not look at this aspect as the Council agreed with the IO’s report.

Complaint 2a

47. That Mrs X’s children had not received counselling despite repeated requests for this.
48. The IO’s report said that complaint 2a should be upheld.
49. The AO agreed and apologised the Council did not directly address requests for counselling at the time.
50. The review panel did not look at this aspect as the Council agreed with the IO’s report.

Complaint 2b

51. That a previous complaint about a lack of counselling was not dealt with.
52. The IO’s report said that complaint 2b should be upheld.
53. The AO agreed with the finding that it should also be upheld.
54. The review panel did not look at this aspect as the Council agreed with the IO’s report.

Complaint 5

55. That there was a delay in acknowledging the stage two complaint escalation request Mrs X made to the Council.
56. The IO’s report said that complaint 5 should be upheld.
57. The AO agreed with the IO’s finding to uphold. She apologised for the delay on the Council’s behalf.
58. The review panel did not look at this aspect as the Council agreed with the IO’s report.

The Council’s stage two adjudication letter

59. In the letter sent, the AO apologised for the additional delays Mrs X had experienced throughout the stage two complaint process. This included a delay in sending the adjudication letter which the Council said was due to staff shortages.
60. The Council responded to the recommendations set out in the IO’s report and to some of Mrs X’s desired outcomes.
61. The letter finished by saying this was the Council’s final response and explained the complaint could be taken to a review panel if Mrs X was still unhappy. The AO offered Mrs X £100 as a symbolic payment to recognise the delays in the complaint handling process.

The stage three review panel

62. In addition to the findings, the panel then made its own recommendations. It based these on discussions about the complaint as a whole and the individual aspects of complaint it had reviewed at stage three.
63. The panel recommended a £500 payment to Mrs X, saying this was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies (the guidance). It said this was to remedy the failings identified in relation to complaints 1, 2, 4a) (that there were repeated inaccuracies in social work reports) and 5 and the delays experienced within the complaints handling process.

The Council’s response to the stage three panel recommendations

64. Officer J disagreed with the review panel’s finding for complaint 4a).
65. Officer J commented on the panel’s recommendations including the £500 suggested remedy payment.
66. She said that the panel had made reference to the guidance from the Ombudsman but it had not provided its reasons for suggesting a symbolic financial payment. Neither had it referred to the part of the guidance that linked in with the suggested payment.
67. Officer J said she considered the apologies provided for complaints 1, 2 and 5 were proportionate and appropriate remedies. She said the guidance placed an emphasis on the importance of providing an apology to recognise fault.
68. Officer J said it remained unclear why the panel felt a symbolic payment was necessary and it had not explained why it felt a payment should be made to Mrs X or linked it to the guidance.
69. Officer J disagreed that any payment should be made to Mrs X and signposted her to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Complaint 1

70. Mrs X complained that very sensitive personal medical information had been included in a social care report. The AO apologised that on that occasion, information which was outdated had been included in the report. The AO confirmed the information had since been removed.
71. At the end of the full complaint process, Officer J said she believed an apology was an appropriate and proportionate remedy, rather than the review panel’s suggested total payment of £500. I disagree.
72. In my telephone call with Mrs X to discuss her complaint, she explained what information had been recorded. Mrs X explained how upsetting it was to know the information was in the report when she felt that it was inaccurate and should never have been in the report.
73. Having outdated information contained in the report was fault. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances of the complaint, this will have caused Mrs X significant frustration and distress. I do not consider an apology alone to be an appropriate remedy. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice.

Complaints 2a) and 2b)

74. Mrs X initially complained that counselling had not been organised despite repeated requests (complaint 2a) and that a complaint about this had not been acted on (complaint 2b).
75. The Council agreed there was fault which is why these issues were not investigated any further after stage two of the process had ended.
76. At the end of the complaint process, Officer J again said she believed an apology was an appropriate and proportionate remedy, rather than the panel’s suggested total payment of £500. I disagree.
77. In the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied that the agreed fault would have caused Mrs X significant frustration and distress. I do not consider an apology alone to be an appropriate remedy. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.
78. As counselling has now taken place, I will make no further recommendation linked to this.

Stage two complaint process

79. The statutory process sets out strict timescales for the handling of complaints about children’s services.
80. The stage two process, at its longest, should take no more than 65 working days. 65 working days from the date of Mrs X’s stage two escalation request on 3 February 2023, is 10 May 2023.
81. The stage two process was completed when the AO’s letter was sent to Mrs X on 16 November 2023. This took 200 working days from early February 2023, meaning the process was completed 135 working days later than it should have been.
82. The AO, in her letter to Mrs X, said the Council should offer £100 as a symbolic payment to recognise the delays. The panel at stage three then recommended £500 which included the £100 mentioned by the AO.
83. Officer J at the stage three review then made the decision that no payment should be made at all with an apology being sufficient.
84. Mrs X experienced a significant delay in the stage two part of the process. There were delays at the beginning of the process in trying to organise mediation before beginning the search for an IO and IP. This formed part of an overall longer and more significant delay resulting in the 135 working day delay over the statutory timescale for the stage two part of the process.
85. The delayed completion of the stage two process is fault. It would have caused Mrs X distress and frustration. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the injustice requires a remedy greater than an apology. I have therefore made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice.

The stage three panel process

86. The Council should have held the review panel meeting within 30 working days of the escalation request.
87. Mrs X emailed to escalate her complaint to stage three on 5 December 2023. The Council acknowledged this 35 working days later on 26 January 2024. It apologised for the delay which was due to an error on its part. The panel meeting was held 42 working days after the Council sent its January acknowledgement email.
88. Mrs X therefore experienced another significant delay of 47 working days at stage three of the process in addition to the 135 working day delay already experienced at stage two. This further delay is fault. It would have added to Mrs X’s distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice.

The Council’s review of the panel’s report

89. The Council received the panel’s stage three report on 3 April 2024. From here, it had 15 working days to issue its response to Mrs X to set out its opinion on the panel’s findings and recommendations. The Council emailed Officer J’s letter to Mrs X on 15 May 2024. This was 29 working days after the date of the panel’s report to it.
90. Mrs X therefore experienced another delay of 14 working days at this point. This further delay is fault and brings the total overall delay to 196 working days.
91. This final delay would have again added to Mrs X’s distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

92. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise for the injustice caused by the delays in the complaint handling process;
• make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £250 to recognise the distress caused by the injustice identified for complaints 1, 2a), 2b) and 5);
• make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £250. This is to recognise the time and trouble experienced because of complaint handling delays from the beginning of the stage two process onwards (including complaint 5); and
• share the Ombudsman’s good practice guidance on the children’s statutory complaints procedure with all relevant officers and managers.
93. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
94. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
95. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

96. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman