Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or address her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to remove her son from her care. She also complained the Council has failed to provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s delays, poor record keeping, failings in communication and use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Mrs X and her son unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs X and Y to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or address her complaints and has failed to provide an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
4. 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

5. We have no jurisdiction to consider the court’s decisions to grant an Emergency Protection Order or the subsequent Child Arrangement Order and Supervision Order. We cannot consider the contents of any reports or information provided to the court as part of these proceedings.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

8. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. Section 47 of the Children Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make "such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area".
10. Where a child needs immediate protection the council, or the police, must act as soon as possible after the referral if removal is required. The council can apply for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO), or the police can issue a Police Protection Order (PPO) which means a police officer can remove the child immediately.

Statutory complaints procedure

11. 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.
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened here

18. On 3 December 2020 the police removed Mrs X’s son, Y from her care under a Police Protection Order. Y stayed with his grandmother, Mrs Z overnight and on 4 December 2020 was placed with a foster carer under an Emergency Protection Order.
19. Following a court hearing on 7 January 2021, Y returned to stay with Mrs Z under a Child Arrangement Order and then returned home to Mrs X on 30 April 2021. The Court granted the Council a Supervision Order which ended in May 2022.
20. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council in August 2022. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her child, Y from her care. She said it was based on false information. Mrs X said following the Council’s decision to remove Y, he was assaulted by a foster carer. She also complained about her contact arrangements with Y. Mrs X said the Council’s decision making had caused Y and herself severe distress.
21. As the Council did not respond Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. We referred this matter back to Council who responded to Mrs X in January 2023. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has progressed her complaint through Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. There were delays at both stages and Mrs X again asked for our assistance.
22. The Stage 2 investigation was completed in February 2024. It agreed the following heads of complaint with Mrs X:
1. a) the Stage 1 response neither explains nor describes the events underpinning response.

b) up to the appointment of the last Stage 2 Investigating Officer, there was a delay in progressing her complaint through the complaint process

2. that (a) false information was used and (b) this false information contributed to the decision to remove Y from her care on 3rd December 2020.
3. the manner of the social work manager was one of hostility.
4. it has not been explained why the initial agreement made on 3rd December 2020 for Y to remain in the family home was subsequently changed on the same day.
5. there was a delay in starting the Child and Family Assessment.
6. a) there have been delays in providing her with minutes of meeting held in December 2020 or January 2021.

b it was incorrect of Children’s Services to deny that the meeting (December 2020 or January 2021) took place.

7. Children’s Services have not explained why they would not allow a family member to attend a medical with Y only to change that decision some two days later.
8. Children’s Services have not explained how they arrived at the conclusion that Y’s injuries occurred whilst at contact
9. Children’s Services have not explained why Y was not medically examined given Mrs Z had reported bruising
10. there was a delay in removing Y from his foster placement following the allegations
11. Children’s Services should have made more effort in relation to finding an alternative contact centre.
12. Children’s Services failed to advise her in a timely manner that the case was closed.
7. The investigation upheld complaints 1a, 1b, 2, 6a, 6b and 12. It did not uphold complaints 3, 5, or 11 and made no findings in relation to the remaining complaints. It recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X for the failings identified and consider financial redress based on our guidance. The investigation also recommended a series of service improvements.
8. The Council accepted the stage 2 investigations findings and confirmed it would action the recommendations. It offered to pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the distress, worry and inconvenience she had experienced and the time and trouble she had been put to.
9. The Stage 3 review panel considered Mrs X’s complaint in July 2024. It only considered the complaints which were not upheld or where there was no finding. It disagreed with several of the stage 2 investigation findings. The panel determined complaints 4 and 11 were upheld and partly upheld complaint 3. The stage 2 investigation made no finding in relation to complaint 10, but the panel determined it was not upheld.
10. The panel felt there was a general lack of empathy conveyed by the Council and noted the family had still not received a letter of apology despite two significant complaints being upheld and the negative impact on the family. It recommended the Council send Mrs X a letter of apology displaying empathy and understanding within two weeks of the panel hearing.
11. In addition the panel was concerned the Council remained unable to see how confusing and distressing it must have been for Y to spend time with Mrs X at a contact centre so close to the family home. It recommended the Council consider financial redress for the distress caused to Y as well as that caused to Mrs X.
12. On 9 September 2024 the Council wrote to Mrs X confirming it accepted the review panel’s findings and recommendations. The Council offered Mrs X £250 to recognise the distress she experienced and a further £250 for her time and trouble. It also offered to pay £300 to recognise the distress Y experienced.
13. Mrs X remains dissatisfied with the outcome and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. Mrs X says that living so close to the contact centre is distressing for both her and her son.

Analysis

30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Save for the significant delays, there is no indication of fault in the way Mrs X’s complaint was considered. It is disappointing that both the stage 2 investigation and the review panel were unable to make findings in relation to several complaints due to the poor quality of the Council’s record keeping. But I do not consider this was a flaw in the complaint investigation, or that it can be resolved by further investigation.
33. I do not therefore consider it necessary to reinvestigate Mrs X’s complaint, but consider our intervention is warranted regarding the remedy.
34. The statutory complaints process upheld a number of Mrs X’s complaints. The Council’s delays, poor record keeping, failings in communication and use of a contact centre which can be seen from the family home all caused Mrs X and Y significant distress, at what will already have been a difficult and uncertain time.
35. I do not consider the Council’s offers adequately redress this. In addition to the offer of £250 for the time and trouble Mrs X has been put to, I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and Y of £500 each to recognise the significant avoidable anxiety, frustration and upset they have experienced.

Back to top

Action

36. The Council has agreed to:
• pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the significant distress she has experienced as a result of the Council’s failings;
• pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the significant distress Y has experienced as a result of the Council’s failings. Mrs X should use this money for Y’s benefit as she sees fit.
• pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble she has been put to.
37. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice The Council has agreed to actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman