Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to properly consider his complaint about how it handled a referral relating to the welfare of his children. The Council was at fault for not considering Mr X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the frustration this caused and consider his complaint further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council responded to a safeguarding referral about his family. He says the Council:

• without consent contacted other agencies;
• failed to answer and explain its policies and laws that gave it the right to do such an intrusive investigation;
• asked his children irrelevant questions; and
• ignored and manipulated his complaint and refused to escalate it to the next stage of the complaint procedure.

2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have breached his human rights, specifically Article 8. He also says this has caused him and his family stress and anxiety. Mr X also states that he is now treated differently by his children’s schools who have judged him following the referral.

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 have investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to escalate his complaint to the next stage.
7. I have not investigated Mr X’s substantive complaint about the way the Council responded to a safeguarding referral about his family. I have explained why in paragraph 25.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the information Mr X provided. I also considered the information given by the Council in response to my enquiries.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered these comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Section 17 duties

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
11. 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.

Statutory complaints procedure

12. 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.
13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

What happened

18. In late 2023, the Council received an anonymous referral about concerns for the welfare of Mr X’s children.
19. The Council said they considered this referral under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
20. Mr X complained to the Council about the way it had responded to the referral. He said the Council:

• without consent contacted other agencies;
• failed to answer and explain its policies and laws that gave it the right to do such an intrusive investigation;
• asked his partner and children irrelevant and distressing questions; and
• searched his home without a valid warrant.

21. Mr X said the Council’s actions left his family feeling violated and deeply distressed.
22. The Council responded around three weeks later. It did not uphold any parts of Mr X’s complaint.
23. Mr X was unhappy about the Council’s complaint response and raised a stage two complaint.
24. The Council responded the same day and said it had nothing further to add. The Council added that as Mr X had now exhausted the complaints procedure, there was no further advice it could provide. It also said that it would not acknowledge or respond to further correspondence about these matters.

Analysis

25. 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, we expect council’s to complete the complaints procedure. Therefore I have not investigated Mr X’s substantive complaints about the Council’s actions.
26. Mr X raised a complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to section 17 duties. The Council confirmed they considered the referral under section 17.
27. Section 17 complaints are covered by the statutory children’s complaint procedure and so the Council should have considered it through that procedure.
28. The Council did respond to Mr X’s stage one complaint. However, when he escalated this to stage two because he was unhappy with the response, the Council refused to consider the matter further.
29. The Council should have considered Mr X’s complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure.. The Council did not do this and this is fault and not in line with the statutory guidance. This has caused Mr X frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused to him and his family for not following the statutory complaints procedure;
• make a payment of £250 to Mr X to recognise the frustration caused to him and his family for not following the statutory complaints procedure;
• progress with investigation of Mr X’s complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure and confirm appointments of an investigating officer and independent person to Mr X; and
• remind staff dealing with complaints of the importance of following the statutory complaints procedure in relation to section 17 matters.

31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman