Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not progress a complaint he made to the final stage of the children’s statutory complaints process and would not arrange an independent panel to consider his complaint. There was no fault in the Council’s actions as its decision was in line with statutory guidance.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council would not progress a complaint he made to stage three of the children’s statutory complaints process and would not arrange an independent panel to consider his complaint. Mr X said this caused him frustration and prevented his complaint being properly considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure and whether it was in line with statutory guidance. I have not investigated the substantive matter of Mr X’s complaint to the Council.

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 documents the Council provided.
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

Stautory children’s complaint procedure

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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.
11. If the complaint has been submitted orally, the council must ensure the details of the complaint and the complainant’s desired outcome are recorded in writing and agreed with the complainant. This may be achieved either by correspondence or by meeting the complainant to discuss, followed by a written record of what was agreed.
12. 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.
13. 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.

Guidance on responding to complainant’s behaviour

14. The guidance sets out the actions a council can take when a complainant becomes unreasonably persistent in their behaviour while it is considering their complaint. It states unreasonably persistent behaviour may include:
• frequent, lengthy, complicated and stressful contact with council officers;
• behaving in an aggressive manner to staff or being verbally abusive or threatening;
• changing aspects of the complaint partway through the investigation or Review Panel;
• making and breaking contact with the local authority on an ongoing basis; and
• persistently approaching the council through different routes about the same issue in the hope of getting different responses.
15. The council should tell the person why their behaviour is unreasonable and ask them to change it. If the unacceptable behaviour continues, the council can restrict the person’s contact with it. It should write to tell them what action it is taking and for how long and how they can challenge the decision if they disagree with it.
16. The guidance says any restrictions should be appropriate and proportionate and may include:
• requesting contact in a particular form (for example, letters only);
• requiring contact to take place with a named officer;
• restricting any telephone calls to be specified days and times;
• asking the complainant to enter into an agreement about their conduct; and
• applying its policy on unreasonably persistent complainants.
17. Some complainants behaviour may move from unreasonably persistent to unacceptable. The councils should act to protect staff from unacceptable behaviour, including abusive, offensive or threatening communication.
18. The guidance says where a complainant continues to behave in a way which is unacceptable, the council may terminate contact with the complainant and end any investigation into the complaint. In this case it should signpost the complainant to the Ombudsman.

What happened

19. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
20. Mr X complained to the Council about its actions in relation to child protection matters involving his children in February 2022. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in May 2022.
21. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and requested a stage two investigation of his complaint. Due to ongoing court proceedings the Council paused the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
22. The Council said it wrote to Mr X in June 2022 and told him the frequency of his contacts was hindering its consideration of his complaint, and other people’s complaints.
23. The court proceedings ended in January 2023 and Mr X contacted the Council to progress his complaint. The Council appointed an IO and an IP to consider Mr X’s complaints in March.
24. The IO and the Council said they made several attempts to speak with or meet Mr X between the end of February and May 2023 to confirm his complaint. Mr X declined to meet with the IO either online or in person.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X in May 2023 as he had raised 41 different complaints, some of which it was already considering through the statutory complaints procedure, but had not confirmed his stage two complaint. It asked Mr X to confirm his complaint. It told him that following its letter of June 2022 it now considered his behaviour to be unreasonably persistent and set out the reasons why. It told Mr X it was restricting his access to the complaints team to one email per week about the complaint or complaint procedure, and it would respond once per week.
26. The Council suspended considering Mr X’s complaint in May 2023 for four months, at Mr X's request. Mr X asked for an advocate to support him. The Council tried to refer to an advocacy service for Mr X. It told Mr X the advocacy service had not accepted the referral from it and provided the contact details for Mr X to contact the service himself. The Council said it offered to arrange meetings with Mr X’s family member to support him, and advised Mr X to speak with mental health professionals he was working with.
27. In August 2023 Mr X sent several emails to the Council in a short space of time. He asked it to continue considering his complaint. The Council reminded Mr X it considered the emails to be unreasonably persistent.
28. The Council told Mr X that emailing a Council officer 12 times in one day was inappropriate in September 2023. It reminded him of its letter of June 2022 and email of May 2023 and its expectations for his contact with the Council.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X again in October 2023 and said that as he had not confirmed his statement of complaint, it would proceed with the stage two investigation and would only consider the four points of complaints it had already responded to at stage one. It said it would consider the other points of complaint separately.
30. The Council wrote to Mr X in December 2023. It said the IO and IP had not been able to meet with Mr X, he had not provided his list of complaints as it had requested him to do and the IO had been unable to gather evidence from Mr X. It offered Mr X the opportunity to meet with the IO and IP to share evidence he had about his complaints. Mr X declined to meet with them.
31. The IO completed their investigation and issued a report in January 2024. The IO recorded they had made many attempts to discuss the complaint matters with Mr X, but had been unable to do so. The investigation considered all the documentary evidence and interviewed key Council staff members. The IO was unable to interview two key Council staff members as they no longer worked for the Council and could not be contacted.
32. The investigation did not uphold three elements of Mr X’s complaint. The IO was unable to make a finding on one point as there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove it.
33. The Council wrote an adjudication letter to Mr X at the beginning of February and provided a copy of the IO’s report. It confirmed it agreed with the IO’s findings and did not uphold Mr X’s complaints. It told Mr X how he could request further consideration of his complaint.
34. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure the same day.
35. Mr X also sent the Council over 20 other emails in the following two days. Some of the emails Mr X sent were abusive and offensive, aggressive and threatening to the Council and specific Council officers.
36. The Council decided it would not consider Mr X’s complaint any further. It wrote to Mr X and told him that because of his repeated communication it would not consider his complaint any further. It said it had written to Mr X about his behaviour in June 2022 and May 2023 and September 2023 but Mr X continued with threatening, repetitive and unreasonably persistent communication. It said it had received approximately 30 emails from Mr X in the previous two weeks which were aggressive and threatening and he had left threatening voicemail messages for a Council officer.
37. The Council set out how Mr X could communicate with it in the future and in what circumstances it would take action on his contacts. It said it would review the contact arrangements in 12 months. The Council directed Mr X to us if he was dissatisfied.
38. Mr X complained to us in June 2024.

My findings

Children’s statutory complaint procedure

39. 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. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation that could call the findings into question.
40. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. When the Council and the IO were unable to establish the complaints Mr X wanted it to consider it decided to investigate the matters it had already considered at stage one. There was no fault in how the Council made that decision.
41. The Council's stage two investigation was thorough and well-evidenced, based on the information and interviews it had available to it. It set out where it could not make a finding due to a lack of evidence and did not uphold Mr X’s other complaints. As there was no fault in how the Council carried out the complaint investigation, I have no reason to question its findings.

Refusal to complete a stage three panel

42. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question the Council’s decision because someone disagrees with it. We can only decide if there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
43. The Council applied the relevant guidance in managing Mr X’s behaviour towards its officers while it was investigating his complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. It warned him about his conduct in June 2022. It told him it considered his behaviour to be unreasonably persistent in May 2023. It set out the reasons why and the restrictions it would put in place. It reminded Mr X of this in May and September 2023.
44. In February 2024, following several abusive emails from Mr X after the stage two did not uphold his complaint, the Council decided his behaviour was unacceptable and it would not consider his complaint any further. It wrote to Mr X and set out the reasons why his behaviour was unacceptable. It told Mr X the action it would take and when it would review the action. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman. The Council’s actions were in line with the guidance and there was no fault in how it made its decision. As there was no fault in how the Council made its decision I cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. I did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman