Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to place her grandson in her care. She also complained the Council has failed to address her concerns or provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s failure to provide support and the use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Miss X unnecessary distress. To remedy this, the Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate her complaints and address her concerns or 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 Miss X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the 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 Miss X’s grandson, Y from his mother’s care under a Police Protection Order and placed him with Miss X. The following day social workers visited Miss X’s home to take Y to a child protection medical. The Council’s records say the behaviour of another family member made the situation unmanageable and it felt Miss X was no longer sufficiently able to protect Y.
19. The Council applied for and obtained an Emergency Protection Order and Y was placed with a foster carer late in the evening on 4 December 2020.
20. Following a court hearing on 7 January 2021, Y returned to stay with Miss X under a Child Arrangement Order and then returned home to his mother on 30 April 2021. The Court granted the Council a Supervision Order which ended in May 2022.
21. On 21 November 2021 Miss X made a formal complaint about the Council’s actions and the way it had treated her family. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in December 2021. Miss X was not satisfied by the Council’s response which she did not consider addressed her whole complaint. In January 2022 Miss X asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
22. The Council appointed an independent investigator in July 2022 who met virtually with Miss X and agreed the following heads of complaint:
1. Miss X was misinformed on 3 December 2020 by the Social Worker. The Social Worker told Miss X that Y’s mother had punched him in the face.
2. a) Children’s Services acted against the agreed Section 20 when they ignored Police Intel and instead relied on inaccurate information held on their own systems about Y’s parents, which suggested they had had their children taken away previously due to acts of neglect. This Intel was misinterpreted by Children’s Services and led to Y being removed from his home.

b) Children’s Services failed to undertake any risk assessment of the family home at the time of the concerns.

c) On 4 December 2020 Children’s Services removed Y from Miss X’s care into foster care, on the premise that the situation at her home had become unmanageable. The removal of Y was, in Miss X’s view unjustified.

d) A social worker said another family member could take Y to a medical appointment. A manager later said this family member could not take Y to his appointment, giving no reason for the changed decision. This was when frustrations and anxieties heightened which led to the manager calling the Police.

e) Social workers visiting Miss X’s home on 4 December 2020 were unfriendly and appeared to have already formed a negative view of Miss X and another family member

3. A social worker undertook only one visit for approximately 2 hours on 12 December 2020 and within that time formed a detrimental opinion of Miss X. Miss X believe that reporting and assessments by the manager and social worker have largely been inaccurate and based on assumptions, not fact.
4. a) Y was placed back in Miss X’s care in January 2021, and she adhered to the conditions put in place by Children’s Services. The Child in Need (CiN) Plan dated 15 January 2021 stated that visits would be every 2 weeks (both announced and unannounced however, in 4 months Social Worker’s only visited Miss X’s home twice.

b) The CiN Plan recommendations have not been actioned. For example, school were asked to respond with potential options of support for Y by 14 January 2021.

c) The contact venue was immediately opposite Y’s home, so every time he went for contact, he saw his house. Although the family asked for this to be changed to another venue they were ignored.

d) There was a total lack of support from Children’s Services whilst Y was in Miss X’s care. Miss X was not told about the family group conference (FGC) or contact arrangements and was left to find this all out for herself. At the FGC Miss X asked for support in handling Y, as Y was having many tantrums and flashbacks. No support was offered.

5. There have been unacceptable delays in dealing with Miss X’s complaint from 16 November 2021 to when the Independent Investigator and Independent Person were commissioned, in July 2022.
5. The stage 2 investigation concluded in January 2023 and upheld complaints 4a and 5 and partially upheld 4b and 4d. The investigation did not uphold the remaining complaints.
6. Miss X asked for her complaint to be considered by the stage 3 review panel in February 2023. There was an extensive delay in arranging this, and the panel hearing did not take place until July 2024. Miss X made a separate complaint to us about this delay.
7. The stage 3 panel agreed with most of the stage 2 findings, but upheld complaint 4c). In addition where the stage 2 investigation did not uphold complaints 1a), 2d), and 2e) the panel recommended these heads of complaint were changed to No Finding.
8. The Council wrote to Miss X in September 2024 and confirmed it accepted the stage 3 panel’s findings.
9. Miss X remains dissatisfied with the outcome and does not feel her complaints were fully addressed. Y’s mother also made a complaint to the Council which has again progressed through each stage of the statutory complaints process. The stage two investigation of Y’s mother’s complaint upheld her concern that false information was used and contributed to the decision to remove Y from her care on 3rd December 2020. Miss X questioned why complaint 2a) which raised the same issues was not upheld in her case.
10. Miss X also says she did not feel she had the opportunity to say all that she had wanted to at the panel hearing. She feels that the number of people attending the stage 3 review panel meant it was difficult to make herself understood and heard. Miss X says caring for Y put a huge strain and expense on her and she received very little support from the Council.

Analysis

29. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with an independent response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
30. We may decide to look at whether there were any significant 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.
31. There is no indication of fault in the way Miss X’s complaint was considered. Miss X disagrees with the findings of the investigation, but they are reasonable and defensible.
32. I recognise the investigation in to Miss X’s daughter’s complaint reached a different conclusion regarding the information used to inform the decision to remove Y from his mother’s care. However, Y was initially placed with Miss X under police protection and was then subject to court orders regarding his care. We have no jurisdiction to consider or comment on the actions of the police or the courts.
33. While I do not consider there are grounds to reinvestigate Mrs X’s complaints I consider our intervention is warranted regarding the remedy. The investigation upheld elements of Miss X’s complaint but did not consider any injustice this may have caused or make any recommendations.
34. It is clear from the Council’s records that Miss X wanted support to care for Y and at times struggled to manage his behaviours. The lack of support and the use of a contact venue so close to Y’s home affected Miss X’s wellbeing and caused her additional distress and anxiety at what was already a difficult time.
35. There was also a further delay in holding the stage 3 panel hearing and in the Council issuing an adjudication letter. We closed our earlier investigation into the delays in the complaint process in early May 2024 as the Council had agreed to hold a stage 3 panel hearing within a month and make a payment to Miss X. The panel hearing did not take place within a month and the Council then took over two months, rather than the required 20 working days to issue its adjudication.
36. These further delays will have exacerbated Miss X’s distress and frustration.

Back to top

Action

37. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X for the distress and frustration she as experienced as a result of the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Miss X £350 to recognise the distress and frustration she experienced and time and trouble she was put to as a result of the fault identified.
38. 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

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has been asked to take actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman