Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not provide an adequate financial remedy to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about children’s social care services to their child Y. The Council also failed to provide a meeting it had previously offered in a stage three panel hearing. This was not citizen focussed and was fault causing Mr and Mrs X avoidable distress. The Council will issue a further apology, additional payments and a further complaint response covering another complaint about the removal of Y’s direct payment funds.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council:
1. Failed to meet with them to explain why funds from their daughter Y’s aftercare direct payment had been removed and why it had placed Y on a child protection plan under the category of neglect;
2. Did not give them any feedback on their complaint about the agencies it had used when Y was accommodated by the Council under section 20 of the Children Act 1989; and
3. Did not provide an adequate financial remedy despite upholding their complaints.
2. Mr and Mrs X said this caused avoidable distress and a loss of funding which was intended to support Y. They also said they had lost trust in the Council

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. 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)
5. 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(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I considered information from the Council including the stage two investigation report, the stage three panel report and the relevant adjudication letters from the statutory complaint procedure.
9. Mrs 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

Relevant law and guidance

10. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils. They should put things right. This includes operating an effective complaints procedure which offers a fair and appropriate remedy when a complaint is upheld. We also expect councils to be citizen focused which means keeping to commitments.
11. Councils have the power to provide accommodation for children without a court order, where they cannot live with their parents (Children Act 1989, section 20)
12. Some people who are detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 are entitled to support when they leave hospital. This is called ‘section 117 aftercare’. It is care to help meet mental health needs and to reduce the chance of the person’s condition getting worse and to prevent further admissions to hospital. Aftercare is arranged by a council and the NHS. Aftercare can be arranged by giving the person money called a direct payment, to arrange their own care.
13. There is a three-stage statutory procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services:
• Stage one: local resolution
• Stage two: Independent investigation
• Stage three: Review by an independent panel. After the panel, the council issues a final decision on the complaint which includes an explanation of whether it accepts the panel’s findings and recommendations.
14. 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, we do not normally re-investigate it. We may 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.

Summary of key facts

15. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about its involvement with Y who has mental health conditions and was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. Y received aftercare which was jointly funded by the Council and the local NHS body. She was also accommodated by the Council under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 for about three weeks.
16. The Council investigated a number of complaints from Mr and Mrs X under the statutory complaint procedure summarised in the previous section. It issued a detailed report at stage two, which Mr and Mrs X escalated to stage three.
17. The stage three panel fully or partially upheld all but two of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints including:
1. The section 117 aftercare plan was inadequate in the areas of respite care, it was not signed off and there was a failure to share a copy with Mr and Mrs X
2. There was a failure to inform them of a child protection conference and to share a report before the conference
3. A social worker told the police Y was on a child protection plan due to neglect when this was not the full reason
4. The Council’s section 20 provision was inadequate as it was with two unregulated providers
5. There was a failure to ensure Mr and Mrs X fully understood the standard terms professionals used (‘beyond parental control’)
6. There was a failure to respond to their request for a meeting to discuss factual inaccuracies in the child protection conference report
7. The social worker allowed Y to go into town on her own
8. There was a failure to provide adequate respite care (this worked well initially but there was a gap between September and December 2023)
9. Actions the Council took contributed to Y’s school placement breaking down.
18. The record of the stage three panel meeting included a new issue raised by Mr and Mrs X and not included in their statement of complaint to the local authority: the removal of money from Y's direct payment account. The minutes of the panel meeting said that a senior officer had agreed to meet with Mr and Mrs X to:
• Enable them to understand the reasons the Council had removed £9500 from Y’s direct payment account without their knowledge; and
• Explain the advantages of placing Y on a child protection plan rather than a child in need plan.
19. The panel recommended the meeting (see paragraph 18) took place within a month. It also recommended:
• Reconsideration of the £400 payment already offered
• A reminder to staff to follow council procedure to share conference reports in advance
• Establishment of guidelines for section 117 plans
• Mr and Mrs X to provide an addendum to the conference report which could be attached to the case file.
20. The Council issued an adjudication letter at stage three in January 2025. This said:
• A note had already been added to Y’s case file about the conference report
• Mr and Mrs X needed to set out in writing their reasons for a meeting
• £400 already offered was appropriate
• It had already put in place steps to ensure conference reports were shared in a timely manner and this was being reported on
• It was providing training in section 117 to relevant staff
• It would ensure staff were reminded about planning for respite care in a timely manner.
21. Mrs X emailed the Council’s complaints team following the stage three adjudication letter. She said she was disappointed she was being asked again what she wanted to speak about in a meeting. She said she wanted to discuss:
1. What the benefit was of putting Y on a child protection plan when the Council offered no extra services.
2. Failings in the section 20 placement which she had not received feedback about
3. Why the money was removed from Y’s DP account

Mrs X said she wanted the DP funds returned to Y as they had “spent thousands of pounds supporting Y on respite and didn’t take anything from the DP account for travel or accommodation thinking the fund would stretch further.”

22. The complaints team responded to Mrs X saying points (a) and (b) (in paragraph 21) had already been considered under the statutory complaint procedure and if she remained unhappy, she could contact the LGSCO and the complaint about the removal of DP funds was dealt with in MP correspondence and could also be dealt with through a separate complaint if she wished.

MP correspondence

23. Mr and Mrs X contacted their MP about several matters concerning the Council’s handling of Y’s case including the removal of DP funds. The Council responded to the MP saying in light of feedback from Mr and Mrs X, the Council had decided it was more appropriate to commission Y’s care rather than source a Personal Assistant (using a DP).

Comments from Mrs X

24. Mrs X told me she did not see any benefit to the Council investigating the complaint about the removal of DP funds at this stage and she did not wish to spend time on this as she felt nothing would change. She said she needed to end matters with the Council and move on as it was stressful.

Findings

The Council failed to meet with them to explain why funds from Y’s aftercare direct payment had been removed and why it had placed Y on a child protection plan

25. The issue of removal of DP funds was not included in the independent investigation at stage two and does not appear in the statement of complaint agreed between Mr and Mrs X and the independent investigating officer. The matter was first been raised by Mr and Mrs X at stage three. The Council was not required to add or to investigate additional issues to the statement of complaint at stage three and so it was not at fault in offering a separate meeting to discuss why DP funds had been removed. It was also not fault for the Council to seek to clarify the scope of the discussion and to say that the meeting would not discuss matters already considered under the statutory complaint procedure (section 20 placement and placing Y on a child protection plan)
26. The Council should have facilitated a meeting to discuss the outstanding concern about removal of DP funds having offered one. The failure to hold a meeting having agreed to one is not in line with our expected standards which include putting things right and being citizen focused. It caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable frustration.
27. Although the Council did not hold the meeting, it did offer to respond to the complaint about the removal of DP funds as an alternative and this is a partial remedy. This is still open to Mr and Mrs X and although I accept it may cause them stress to revisit matters, it is appropriate and reasonable for the Council to provide a formal complaint response if Mr and Mrs X wish to pursue this.

The Council did not give any feedback on their complaint about agencies used when Y was accommodated.

28. The Council did give Mr and Mrs X feedback: the stage three panel recorded that their complaint about the agencies was upheld, care was inadequate and the agencies were not registered. So I do not find fault by the Council on this point.

The Council did not provide an adequate financial remedy despite upholding their complaints.

29. Our payments to reflect avoidable distress are symbolic and are typically up to £500. We have discretion to recommend over £500 and take each case on its merits. We may also recommend further payments where there has been a loss of service to which there was an entitlement or expectation.
30. I have taken into account the Council upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaints and accepted poor communication, failures in provision of respite care, section 117 plans and inadequate provision of accommodation when Y was in temporary care for three weeks. I have made recommendations below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

31. Within one month of my final decision the Council will complete the following actions:
• Issue a further written apology to Mr and Mrs X and to Y for the avoidable distress caused by poor communication, failures in the provision of respite care, failures in section 117 planning and inadequate care placement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
• Respond to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about why it removed the DP funds from Y’s DP account.
• Make one joint payment of £750 to Mr and Mrs X to reflect their avoidable frustration and distress as identified by the Council in its complaint process. This includes accepted failings in its provision of adequate respite care.
• Make one payment of £500 to Y to reflect the inadequate provision of section 20 accommodation which the Council accepted contributed to her school placement breaking down.
32. The Council will also provide us with evidence of:
• the training it has delivered to staff on section 117
• its monitoring of cases to ensure conference reports are shared in a timely manner.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman