Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s involvement in the child safeguarding procedure following an incident in September 2021. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her and her children avoidable distress. The Council was at fault for the delay in considering Miss X’s complaint, and the lack of information around medical examinations for her children. We consider the remedies the Council offered to Miss X suitably address the injustice it had caused her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s involvement in the child safeguarding procedure following an incident in September 2021. She said the Council should not have started statutory section 47 enquiries and that it failed to tell her that not all her children had to undergo a medical examination. Additionally, Miss X complained about the time it has taken the Council to consider her complaint.
2. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her and her children avoidable distress and had lasting consequences for the family as her eldest son no longer lives with them.
3. Miss X would like the Council to apologise and take responsibility for what happened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. 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 do not normally investigate the substantive matter someone complains to us about if their complaint has completed the statutory procedure, as in this case. We are satisfied that the Council followed the correct process and we have therefore not investigated Miss X’s concerns about the Council’s safeguarding of her children and involvement in their care.
9. Miss X’s complaint is late, however we decided to investigate it because we consider the significant delay in the Council completing the statutory children’s complaint procedure is a good reason to do so. It also meant that there was injustice the delay in the process caused to Miss X that would not be remedied without our involvement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have considered:
• all the information Miss X provided and gave her the opportunity to speak with me;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
11. Miss X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Children’s Complaints

12. The statutory children’s complaint process was set up to give children and those representing them an opportunity for a thorough independent investigation of their concerns. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 specify how the procedure should be carried out.
13. 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.
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 look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who 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. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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

19. Miss X is mother to three boys, A, B, and C. The Council’s children services were aware of A because of his past challenging behaviours.
20. In summer 2021 the Council completed a Child and Family Assessment (CAFA) of Miss X’s family. It noted it had no concerns over the safety of the children or Miss X’s caring capabilities.
21. In late September 2021 Miss X’s eldest child made allegations against her and the Council got involved with the family. Around this time the Council told Miss X that all three children should undertake a medical examination. Miss X said the Council did not explain to her that she could have refused the medical examination for her two younger children who did not made allegations against her. She also said the social worker told her that if she cooperated her case may not be escalated to section 47 enquiries.
22. Within four days the Council decided to begin the Child Protection procedures. Miss X says that this was unnecessary because soon after her child made the allegations, he admitted he lied because he was frustrated with Miss X. Additionally, she believed the Council would not escalate the case because she had cooperated with the Council.
23. In mid-October the Council held a Child Protection Conference and put all Miss X’s children on a Child in Need plan.
24. In November 2021 A permanently moved to live with his father in another Council’s area.
25. In mid-September 2022 Miss X made a complaint to the Council. The complaint was complex and covered many areas of support for her and her children.
26. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in early November 2022. It said that:
• The Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) recommended her children should be on Child in Need plans based on the information available at the time;
• The Council regularly reviewed the plan it had in place for safeguarding her eldest son; and
• Following Miss X’s concerns about the care her eldest son was getting from his father the Council made the appropriate referral to his local Council.
27. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and in early December 2022 she asked the Council to consider her complaint further. She said that many aspects of her complaint were not responded to.
28. The Council met with Miss X in January and agreed a statement of complaint. The statement summarised Miss X’s complaint to 10 main areas.
29. In late April 2023 the Council issued its stage two investigation response. It upheld or partially upheld most of Miss X’s complaint. It offered to pay Miss X £200 for the distress she experienced because of the fault in the Council’s actions. Miss X did not accept this offer.
30. Miss X wrote to the Council in May 2023 and asked for a panel hearing as she continued to be unhappy about the Council’s responses. She said the Council had not addressed all of her concerns. For example, it had not told Miss X who was the person that entered the examination room in hospital.
31. In mid-January 2024 the Council held a panel hearing that reviewed the Council’s investigation and findings. There were some decisions the panel changed into upheld decisions. As a result, the Council came up with an action plan and offered the £200 to Miss X again, and said it would pay her a further £500 to recognise the panel hearing findings. It also gave Miss X the opportunity to correct any errors in her records, created a leaflet informing parents of their consent rights in regard to medical examinations and information about the Child in Need process.
32. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s actions and in March 2024 she asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
33. In October 2024 the Council updated the Ombudsman about the progress of its action plan it created as part of the statutory complaints procedure. It said that it had already told Miss X that the person who entered the examination room was an NHS Chaperone.

Analysis

34. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council handled her complaint under the statutory procedure. She said it started in 2022 and was not complete until 2024.
35. Miss X made her complaint to the Council in mid-September 2022. This means the Council should have responded to her in the first two weeks of October. The Council issued its response in late October. This is fault.
36. The records show the Council took from early December 2023 to late January 2024 to agree a statement of complaint. This is fault and caused Miss X avoidable frustration. Stage two investigations should be completed within 65 working days or 13 weeks from the date the Council agreed a statement of complaint. Miss X agreed her statement of complaint in late January 2023. The Council completed the stage two mid-April 2023. This was within the required 13 weeks and the Council was not at fault.
37. Miss X asked the Council to hold a stage three panel in late May 2023. The Council should have held the panel hearing by early July and issued its stage three response by the end of July. The Council held the stage three panel in late January 2024 and issued its final decision 21 days after the hearing.
38. The Council was therefore at fault for delay in arranging the stage three panel. The fault caused Miss X further avoidable frustration. The Council accepted the statutory procedure was delayed and offered to pay her £200. We consider this remedy is in line with our guidance and suitably remedies the delay in the statutory complaint procedure.
39. Additionally, the Council offered Miss X £500 for the faults that it had identified during the statutory process. The faults the Council accepted also included the lack of support for her children. We consider the Council’s offer suitably addresses the avoidable distress the Council’s actions caused her.
40. However, we consider the Council should also recognise the impact its actions had on Miss X’s children. This is part of the Council’s own findings during its investigation. Because of this we recommend it pays £150 to each of her three children, to recognise the lack of support the Council found in its investigation.
41. The Council has already made service improvements to address the faults it accepted during the children’s statutory complaints process and we consider them to be satisfactory Because of this, we will not make any service improvements recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for its failures it accepted during the complaints procedure and the distress and frustration this has caused her. The Council should refer to our guidance on making an effective apology;
• pay Miss X the £200 it offered her to recognise the delay in completing the statutory complaints procedure;
• pay Miss X the £500 it offered to recognise the avoidable distress its faults caused her; and
• pay a total of £450 (£150 each) for the avoidable distress the Council’s lack of support following an incident caused to Miss X’s children.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council accepted fault during the statutory complaint’s process and offered partially suitable remedy. In addition to the £700 it offered to Miss X during its complaints process, it also agreed to pay additional £450 for the injustice its lack of support caused to Miss X and her children following an incident she reported.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman