Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s complaint about the actions of Childrens Social Care in safeguarding her while she was under a ‘child in need’ plan in 2007. This matter was considered by the Council under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. Although Ms X remains unhappy with the outcome, we have not seen any obvious flaw in the way the investigation was carried out or how the Council considered the findings at stage two and stage three. Because there appears to be no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X previously complained to the Council that it did not do enough to safeguard her from grooming and abuse in 2007, while she was on a child in need (CIN) plan. After our intervention the Council carried out an investigation under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure.
2. Ms X said the subsequent investigation did not properly consider her complaint, was wrong not to uphold it, and should have considered other sources of information.
3. Ms X wants the Council to accept it was wrong and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Ms X and considered the information she sent us.
7. I considered the stage two investigation reports and the stage three panel report from the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. I also considered the Council’s response to each of these reports.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children Act 1989 complaints procedure

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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. 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 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.
15. 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 at each stage and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

16. The following chronology will provide a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It will not include every detail of what happened.
17. In 2006, Ms X lived with a family member under a residency order. Ms X was 15 years old at the time. In early 2007, Ms X moved to live with another family under a private fostering arrangement.
18. In March 2007, the Council had a conversation with a nurse at Ms X’s school about concerns they had in relation to contact Ms X had with an adult man. Several years later the police carried out an investigation and the man is now serving a custodial sentence for the rape and sexual assault of Ms X and others.
19. In 2023, Ms X complained to us because she had approached the Council and asked it to investigate a complaint, that it should have done more to safeguard her from abuse. The Council had initially refused, and we asked it to carry out an investigation at stage two of the Childrens Act 1989 complaints procedure.
20. In early May 2023, the Council appointed an independent officer to carry out an Investigation. It also appointed an independent person to oversee the investigation. The investigating officer produced a report.
21. I have considered Ms X’s initial complaint to us, and it appears the report completed at stage two of the complaints procedure, demonstrates a proper consideration of the complaint, and refers to documents it reviewed and case records that were available. The report also refers to the relevant law and guidance that was in place at the time.
22. The investigating officer interviewed several people who had relevant information. These included Ms X and some of her family along with other professionals. The investigating officer was not able to speak to the Council officers who were directly involved in supporting Ms X in 2007. Nor where they able to obtain relevant health and education records for this period.
23. The stage two report concluded there was evidence to uphold Ms X’s complaint and gave reasons why this was the case. The report recommended that the Council should make an apology to Ms X and consider providing her with compensation.
24. In October, the adjudicating officer (AO) from the Council wrote to Ms X, saying they had considered the stage two report and had looked at her case records. The AO also said they had considered the statutory guidance, which was in place at the time of the concerns. The AO then set out reasons why they disagreed with the conclusions of the stage two report and told Ms X it did not uphold her complaint. The AO said this was because working practices and knowledge about grooming offences were very different in 2006 and 2007 to current working practices.
25. After this, Ms X asked the stage three review panel to consider their disagreement with the AO’s decisions. According to the stage three panel report, in conclusion, it said it agreed the Council had not fulfilled their responsibilities, but that it could not say what the outcome would have been, had the Council acted any differently.
26. In response to the review panel report, a director from the Council wrote to Ms X. They said they had reviewed the report along with the complaint information. The director said they did not agree with the panel’s findings and set out the reasons why they decided this.
27. The director said they believed the operating practices of Children’s Social Care were very different from those practices of 2006, and they said the findings had been unduly influenced by knowledge of current working practices in recognising victims of abuse.
28. In conclusion, they did not uphold Ms X’s complaint that it had failed to safeguard her from abuse. The director upheld the second part of Ms X’s complaint about the fact the Council refused to initially investigate Ms X’s complaint, until we asked it to.

My findings

29. When a council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act 1989 complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel.
30. Because this complaint has now been through the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure, this means Ms X has already had an independent investigation. We would only re-investigate such a complaint where we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
31. I am satisfied the independent investigator conducted a thorough and fair investigation of Ms X’s complaint. I also note the AO disagreed with the stage two findings.
32. I have looked at how the AO considered their decision and the information they took account of when deciding not to uphold Ms X’s complaint. The available evidence shows the AO considered relevant information and referred to guidance.
33. On the evidence I have seen, their conclusions are not unreasonable ones for them to reach. There is no apparent fault in how it took the decision, and therefore I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
34. Similarly, the stage three review panel came to a different conclusion after hearing evidence from the stage two investigating officer and the AO. They partially overturned the stage two finding to fully uphold Ms X’s complaint, saying while they thought the Council could have done more, they could not say how the outcome would be different.
35. Finally, on the evidence I have seen, the Council properly considered the stage three panel’s findings and chose not to agree with them. It took a decision it was able to take and there is no obvious flaw in the way it made this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman