Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Mr Y’s care. The Council already accepted fault for several complaint points which caused Mrs X distress. The Council will make a symbolic payment and update us on proposed service improvements, in addition to the remedies it has already carried out, to recognise this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her son, Mr Y’s care. She said the Council:
1. failed to mediate and accommodated Mr Y against parents’ wishes;
2. failed to provide parents with a comprehensive explanation about section 20;
3. excluded parents from meetings;
4. failed to meet with parents regularly;
5. provided inaccurate information in the stage one complaint response;
6. the council officer they complained about issued the stage one response;
7. referred to parents in a negative way; and
8. failed to keep Mr Y safe when he was living in supported accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to keep Mr Y safe when he was living in supported accommodation. This is because I have read Mrs X’s complaint to the Council and there is no reference to any injustice being caused to Mrs X by this alleged fault, only to Mr Y. Mr Y, who is now an adult, has not consented to be part of this complaint and declined to complain about this matter himself to the Council. This means I am only able to consider complaints in Mrs X’s own right.
5. Because of this, I am discontinuing this part of Mrs X’s complaint, as although I understand it would have been difficult for Mrs X to see Mr Y in this situation, any injustice to her is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Additionally, as I am unable to investigate parts of the complaint relating to Mr Y, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
6. I have not investigated Mrs X’s substantive complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s care. I have explained why in paragraph 32.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures

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.
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. 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.
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.
13. 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.
14. 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 and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Section 20

15. Councils have a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need in their area who appears to them to need.
16. The council may not provide accommodation in these circumstances if the person who has parental responsibility objects. It can either provide the accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided. A child accommodated in this way is a ‘Looked After Child’ (LAC). (Children Act 1989, section 20)

What happened

17. Mrs X first complained to the Council in March 2023. The Council responded under stage one of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council acknowledged each of Mrs X’s complaint points but failed to say whether it upheld these.
18. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked it to reconsider the matters under stage two.
19. During the stage two investigation, which was completed by April 2024, the IP did not raise any concerns with the investigation process and noted it was a thorough investigation.
20. All key parts of Mrs X’s complaint were addressed. The IP report noted the IO:

• interviewed parents;
• asked to interview Mr Y;
• interviewed the allocated social worker;
• reviewed around 1000 pages of evidence; and
• interviewed 10 members of social care staff.

21. The IP upheld four of the seven complaint points. The Council agreed with this in its adjudication and accepted that it:

• was wrong not to provide Mr Y’s parents with a comprehensive explanation about accommodating him under section 20;
• was wrong to place Mr Y at a hostel for homeless people and should have given him a foster care placement, which it said it didn’t do because of unavailability of foster placements. It partially upheld this part of the complaint;
• failed to meet regularly with Mr Y’s parents, despite their repeated requests for meetings;
• was wrong to tell Mr Y’s parents on the day of the initial looked after child review, that they could not attend; and
• the Council also said the stage one complaint response contained factually incorrect information.

22. The Council apologised to Mrs X within the adjudication letter for these matters.
23. Mrs X was unhappy with the stage two outcome and so asked the Council to reconsider at stage three in June 2024.
24. The Council finished the stage three process in August 2024. The stage three panel decided that based on the wording of Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to complete return home interviews when Y went missing, it changed the finding of this from not upheld to partially upheld. It said that whilst evidence supported that these interviews were completed, there was a lack of consistency in who conducted them, which was important for Y’s individual needs.
25. Except for this, the panel accepted the stage two findings and recommendations for the remaining complaint points.
26. The stage three panel made two further recommendations:

• the Council should introduce a section 20 information leaflet for parents and complete a review to ensure appropriate communication about section 20; and
• it should provide Mrs X with information on action she can take for correcting inaccurate or disputed records.

27. In the stage three directors’ response, the Council said it had started work on the information leaflet and review.
28. It also provided information to Mrs X on action she could take if she felt any records were inaccurate.

Analysis

29. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
30. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
31. I have considered the documents from Mrs X’s complaint, and I note that:
• each part of the complaint was considered at stage two and addressed by the Council; and
• the independent investigation report refers to relevant procedure and case records. These case records support the investigator’s findings.
32. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said, if I were to reinvestigate the complaint. It is also unlikely this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Mrs X. So, a reinvestigation would be of no benefit to her.
33. I have, however, considered whether the Council’s remedies properly recognise the injustice it has caused.
34. The Council apologised for the identified faults without delay, which I welcome. It provided Mrs X with the process for dealing with inaccurate records, which she can use if she wishes.
35. The Council also suggested some service improvements, which it aimed to have implemented by October 2024. I shall ask the Council to provide an update and evidence of its implementation.
36. In reviewing the remedies, I considered our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should effectively remedy injustice.
37. This provides guidance about symbolic payments. The guidance says, when, having already considered each of the previous remedy options, we identify there is still significant unremedied injustice arising from the fault(s), we can ask an organisation to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress or difficulties the person has been put through because of what it did wrong.   
38. The Council is at fault for the areas it accepted during the statutory procedure. These faults caused Mrs X distress. I recommend the Council make a symbolic payment to recognise this, in addition to the apology already carried out, as it hasn’t taken the opportunity to provide a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:

• make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mrs X, to recognise the distress caused by the faults it identified through the statutory complaints procedure; and
• provide an update and evidence of the introduction of a section 20 information leaflet for families and the review completed to ensure appropriate communication about section 20.

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

Back to top

Final decision

41. 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