Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her children; failed to provide appropriate respite and failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the complaints it upheld. I find no fault in respect of the safeguarding or respite and consider the remedy provided is in line with the amounts normally recommended by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her children; failed to provide appropriate respite and failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the complaints it upheld.
2. Mrs X says this caused a great deal of stress and left her with no plan and no support and caused the breakdown of her marriage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child in Need - Duty to provide services

7. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

Child in Need Plan

8. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

9. An employer may request a DBS check as part of their recruitment process . For certain roles, the check will include information held on the Children’s and Adults’ Barred lists, alongside any information held by local police forces, that is considered relevant to the applied-for post.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

10. This law sets out strict guidelines for how organisations can collect, process and use personal data from individuals.

Key facts

11. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
12. Mrs X has three children with special educational needs. The Council conducted the first Child in Need meeting in November 2022. A 12-week behaviour support package with Organisation A was planned to start the following week. At the next CIN review in December 2022 it reported that all three children had been out in the community with the organisation twice. The organisation reported no negative aspects and said all three children were polite.
13. In January 2023, Mrs X emailed the Council saying she wanted to cease the support. Mrs X raised concerns about the staff and asked if DBS checks had been completed.
14. The next CIN meeting was held on 9 November 2023. The Council has not provided evidence to explain why a further meeting did not take place but says that it continued to monitor the situation. It also says that in July 2023 Mrs X said that she no longer wanted children’s services to be involved with her family.
15. The minutes of the 9 November CIN meeting show discussions were held around mental health and education issues. It said respite care should be identified to ensure Mrs X was not overwhelmed. The children were receiving education through an EOTAS (education otherwise than at school) package with tutors from an external agency. An organisation had been identified to provide 10 hours of support per week for each child. The start date was delayed as Mrs X had concerns about checks on the workers. Mrs X shared her frustration about the support offered and delays putting this in place.
16. A further CIN meeting was held on 7 December. Concerns were raised about the children being isolated and that they appear reluctant to engage in social opportunities outside the home. It was noted the agency providing the 10 hours support for each child was no longer involved. An alternative provider was being sought.
17. The Council held regular CIN meetings until September 2024 when Mrs X withdrew her consent for the CIN plan. Mrs X said she did not wish for any further involvement by children’s social care.
18. Mrs X made a formal complaint under the Statutory Children’s complaint procedure. A stage two investigation report was completed in August 2023. This upheld two issues and partially upheld another. This resulted in recommendations for service improvements and a payment of £250 to Mrs X to recognise her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
19. Mrs X escalated her complaint to a stage three review panel. This upheld two further complaints and took the view it was unable to make a finding on another four matters. Mrs X requested it consider the level of payment offered by the Council as a remedy. It took the view a further financial remedy was not required.

Analysis

20. Mrs X complains the Council failed to safeguard her children. I cannot see any evidence to suggest this refers to any specific incident that resulted in a safeguarding investigation but is more about the organisations the Council uses to provide support and respite.
21. The information provided satisfies me that the Council requires organisations to carry out police record checks (DBS) on its staff. I am aware that Mrs X requested sight of these checks for one organisation, Organisation A, that was providing services to her children. The Council refused to share them saying it contained the personal data of staff and so it was prevented from sharing the details. The stage three review panel was satisfied this issue was properly investigated at stage two. It said that while it understood that Mrs X was anxious as a parent of three vulnerable children and that Mrs X may not have had sight of the documents, the local authority had. It did not uphold her complaint.
22. I find no fault in respect of the safeguarding of Mrs X’s children. Mrs X may have wanted to see the outcome of the DBS checks but this is not information the Council can share due to the restrictions of the GDPR. I am satisfied the matter was scrutinised as part of the statutory complaint investigation and there is no basis for me to criticise the Council on this point.
23. Mrs X also raised concerns about the quality and appropriateness of the service provided by Organisation A. It is noted that the package of care started on 14 November 2022 and was initially for five three-hour sessions per week. The aim of the service was to build the children’s confidence and to help them into the community and back to school. At a CIN meeting it was reported the sessions were going well. However, Mrs X cancelled the service on 29 January 2023.
24. Organisation B began working with the children on 11 March 2024. At the beginning of the next month, Mrs X raised concerns about the support. She said the workers lacked motivation. Organisation B met with Mrs X before the support began and an agreement was reached about how the Council would communicate issues to ensure the support didn’t break down. Mrs X provided a list of her expectations about the support before it began. It is reported that Organisation B felt Mrs X’s expectations were too high. One of Mrs X’s children chose not to engage with Organisation B and it withdrew its services on 10 April.
25. In May 2024, the Council identified another organisation, Organisation C, to work with Mrs X’s children. The Council sent Mrs X the profiles of seven members of staff who could potentially work with her children. Mrs X felt the profiles were amateurish and so the Council agreed Mrs X could interview the staff members and asked her to indicate who she wanted to interview. Mrs X then told the Council she wasn’t happy to use Organisation C as she didn’t consider the language used in the profiles to be professional.
26. The Council says that it provided a grant of almost £5,000 in July 2024 to enable the family to go on holiday. This money had been intended to provide care and support for the children but it used the money for a holiday because it had not been able to meet Mrs X’s requirements.
27. The Council says that it continued to search for providers that could meet the needs of the children but Mrs X ended her involvement with children’s services in August 2024 before a further provider was identified.
28. I am satisfied the Council has made efforts to provide support services for Mrs X and her children. The Council cannot impose these services on Mrs X and she is entitled to refuse them if she is not happy. The information provided indicates Mrs X had very specific requirements around the services offered and the people working with her children. It would appear that despite best efforts, the Council was unable to identify a service that was acceptable to Mrs X. While this is unfortunate, I am not persuaded this amounts to fault. Even when services reported that they were working well with the family and the children seemed to be making progress, Mrs X cancelled the services and ultimately withdrew from the CIN process.
29. I note the Council found other ways to try to meet the family’s needs, including offering the unspent money for a family holiday. The Council also provided access to summer activities and leisure centre passes. The children continue to use these passes.
30. Mrs X does not consider the financial remedy offered in response to her statutory complaint to be adequate. I note the Council offered Mrs X a payment of £250 in recognition of her time and trouble in making her complaint. The Ombudsman does not recommend a time and trouble payment just for having to complain through the organisations complaint procedure or for having to bring the case to us. We would however recommend a symbolic distress payment to recognise a person’s anxiety, frustration or upset because of flawed actions.
31. The statutory complaints procedure did uphold some of the complaints made by Mrs X and so it seems to me a distress payment would be appropriate. Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. The Council offered £250, reconsidered by the stage three review panel which decided there was no basis to recommend a higher amount. As this payment is in line with the amounts set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies manual, I consider this is appropriate and find no basis to recommend a higher amount.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice in respect of the matters considered here.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman