Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to plan and provide support for her child, Y, when they reached adulthood and was due to leave Council care. The Council investigated Ms X's complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure without fault. However, it failed to provide an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice the faults caused to Y, Ms X and Z (Ms X’s other child). The Council agreed to make symbolic payments to Y and Ms X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide support and properly plan for her child, Y, when they were due to leave Council care as they approached adulthood. This resulted in Y not having suitable accommodation and support in place which left them at risk of exploitation and harm. This caused Ms X and her family significant distress.
2. The Council investigated and upheld most of Ms X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure however Ms X says the Council failed to recognise the significant distress and impact it had on Y and the wider family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I considered information from the Council including the stage two investigation report, the stage three panel report and the relevant adjudication letters. I also considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
8. Ms 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

The statutory complaints procedure

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
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. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 Accommodation

17. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 requires children’s services to provide accommodation to certain children in need in their area. Section 20 is used to house children who cannot live with their parents. There is no statutory limit on how long a child can be accommodated under s.20.
18. Children’s services has a duty to accommodate under section 20 if:
• No-one has parental responsibility for the young person or
• The young person is lost or abandoned or
• The person who has been caring for the young person is unable to continue to provide suitable care and accommodation.
19. Where a child is accommodated under section 20 the Council must prepare the child for leaving care as they enter adulthood. This is known as pathway planning and entitles the child to advice and assistance in accessing suitable accommodation, education/employment and financial support.

What happened

Background

20. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
21. Ms X has a child, Y. She also has other children including, Z.
22. Between 2019 and 2020 Y did not attend school and was frequently arrested by the police for serious offences. It was believed at the time that Y was being exploited and encouraged to take and sell drugs. All of this was causing significant distress to the family, especially Z.
23. Towards the end of 2020 Ms X could no longer cope with Y living with her and by agreement, the Council took Y into its care under Section 20. Due to Y’s behavior and risk of exploitation while in care they were moved to accommodation in a different council area.
24. Y was due to turn 18 in mid-2022 and was no longer able to stay in the other council area and returned to the Council’s area. The Council dropped Y’s belongings at Ms X’s. Without the appropriate support in place Y stayed in hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation but did not feel safe so began sleeping rough on the streets or returning to Ms X’s house.
25. Ms X said the Council failed to take Y’s complex needs into account and failed to plan and provide them with appropriate support when they reached adulthood. This meant Y was back in the Council’s area associating with people which left them at continuing risk of exploitation and harm. Records Y was again arrested for various offences and was taking drugs. Y’s return had a significant impact on Z’s mental health.

Ms X’s complaints

26. Ms X first complained to the Council in September 2023 about a failure to safeguard Y by allowing them to return to its area and the family home. The Council failed to respond to Ms X’s complaint so she escalated the matter in October 2023 and the Council agreed to carry out a stage two investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Stage two investigation

27. The investigating officer (IO) issued their report in March 2024 and investigated six points of complaint. These included:
• Failing to provide a pathway as Y moved towards their 18th birthday.
• Failing to explain to Ms X what the future was for Y.
• Not safeguarding Y by ensuring he had accommodation away from the Council area where they had been exploited in the past.
• Failing to safeguard and protect Z from all that was happening with Y.
• Failing to understand the impact on Ms X and Z by sending Y back to the family home.
• Failing to respond to Ms X’s stage one complaint.
28. The IO upheld four of the complaints and partially upheld two complaints. They found although a pathway plan was prepared there is no evidence any work was done to update it. The IO found the Council did not safeguard Y although it was not for the want of trying and accepted it failed to safeguard Z.
29. The IO made recommendations to apologise to Ms X and to ensure officers were reminded to update pathway plans regularly at review meetings. The IO recommended planning for young people in care, to ensure they were not placed in specific areas where they would be at risk and that service users were kept informed of what was happening and why.
30. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair and thorough investigation of the complaints raised.
31. The stage two adjudication officer wrote to Ms X in April 2024. The adjudicator agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations and provided an apology to Ms X in the letter. The stage two process took 54 working days longer than allowed.

Stage three independent panel

32. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council in April 2024 to escalate the matter to a stage three panel. She was unhappy with the partially upheld complaints and raised inaccuracies with the IO report. The Council arranged a panel meeting for May 2024 however this was cancelled due to one of the panel members being unable to attend.
33. We found the Council at fault in a previous investigation for failing to rearrange the stage three panel meeting and issued a final decision about it in October 2024. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused and to arrange a stage three meeting without delay.
34. The Council held the stage three panel in November 2024 and upheld all of Ms X’s complaints. The panel agreed with the initial recommendations.
35. The stage three adjudicator wrote to Ms X in December 2024 and accepted the panel’s findings. The adjudicator said the Council would carry out all of the recommendations.
36. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us. She said the Council had failed to fully acknowledge the impact the faults had on Y, her and Z. She said Y returning home had a significant impact on Z. Records from a clinical psychologist outline Z’s mental health decline which they attributed to Y’s return to the family home.
37. Since complaining to us the Council has provided evidence of Y’s Pathway Plan and supervision records which show Y’s case has progressed positively. Y now has settled accommodation and a support worker. Yis now looking towards a return to education or finding work. The records also indicate Y has had no further involvement in crime.

The Council’s response to us

38. The Council said it has taken action around the agreed recommendations. Since the conclusion of the complaints process it:
• has spoken with managers about the importance of ensuring that Pathway Plans are written so as to be understandable to all service users and has carried out audits of cases where there are Pathway Plans to identify areas of improvement in line with the findings of this case. It seeks feedback from service users when completing audits.
• has updated Y’s Pathway Plan and carried out regular supervision meetings as outlined in paragraph 38.
• has reminded officers to ensure compliance with statutory timescales in complaint handling.

My findings

39. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
40. The stage two investigation and stage three panel review were properly conducted, albeit there were delays at each stage. Stage two took 54 days longer than allowed and the Council delayed re-arranging the stage three panel when the initial one was cancelled.
41. During the complaints process the IO reviewed and considered case records, met with Ms X, and carried out interviews with relevant officers. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. The stage three panel independently considered Ms X’s concerns, which resulted in all of Ms X’s complaints being upheld which the Council accepted. There was no fault in how the Council considered the complaints so I accept the findings.
42. The complaints process identified areas of fault which are outlined above and which the Council has fully accepted, acknowledged and apologised for. It has explained the action it has taken against the recommendations. I am satisfied with the progress it has made to prevent recurrence of the faults found in this case.
43. However, the Council has failed to remedy the personal injustice caused to Y. It has also failed to fully acknowledge the impact the matter had on Ms X and Z. This is fault. Had the Council planned properly for Y leaving its care it is likely that he would have had settled accommodation and support in place when they turned 18. The faults identified meant all of this was delayed and meant Y returned home. This had a significant impact on Ms X and especially Z whose mental health and wellbeing has suffered. The faults have caused Y, Ms X and Z distress and uncertainty and I have made recommendations below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
• Pay Y £500 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused to them when it failed to properly plan for them leaving its care when they reached adulthood.
• Pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress caused to her and Z by the same fault.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman