Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the actions taken by the Council in respect of complaints about the care and support provided to their son (Z) by Children’s Services. We found the Council delayed in the completing the complaints process. It also delayed in progressing the assessment and planning process for Z. This caused frustration, distress and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs B and Z. The Council has agreed to pay the family £800.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that the London Borough of Barnet (the Council), in respect of his complaints about his son (Z):
• delayed excessively in completing stages one and two of the complaints process;
• failed to properly investigate the complaints or understand the consequences of the fault; and,
• failed to take appropriate action as a result of the complaint.
2. This has caused significant distress and frustration to the whole family, along with significant time and trouble for Mr and Mrs B, in pursuing the complaint.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr and Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Child in Need

7. The definition of a child in need is a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services by a local authority. It includes children who are disabled.

Looked after child

8. A Looked after Child (LAC) is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order.
9. Parents keep their parental responsibility even when a child is accommodated under a care order. They have a right to be told and consulted about all decisions, usually as part of a looked after child review.

Children’s Services complaints procedure

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

Background

11. Mr and Mrs B’s child, Z, has several behavioural disorders and other mental health conditions (including learning disabilities and elements of autistic spectrum disorder), which affect his behaviour, particularly at home, along with his concentration, motivation and ability to do simple tasks. The police had been involved on several occasions in 2015/16 and made referrals to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). Mr and Mrs B declined support from the Council as they had engaged private therapeutic services, including Z attending a residential programme in a different country, and put in place their own limited support system. He was attending a private independent school some distance from his home.

Assessment 1: November 2017 – February 2018

12. By autumn 2017, Z’s behaviour had worsened and the situation at home had reached crisis point. In November 2017 a social worker (SW1) started a child and family assessment. He completed the assessment on 13 February 2018. He referred Z to the youth service for a targeted youth worker to help Z engage in meaningful and positive activities, to create focus and structure in his life. The assessment form recorded that Z was not disabled. There was no evidence that the assessment had been shared with Mr and Mrs B or Z.
13. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council that it was discriminating against Z by not treating him as disabled and that he should be referred to the 0 to 25 disabled children’s service. They felt he had severe and profound needs and they wanted the Council to support them in finding the right therapeutic service for Z. The Council explained that Z did not meet the eligibility threshold for that service because he had emotional behavioural difficulties rather than a learning disability.

Stage one complaint

14. Mr and Mrs B made a complaint in April 2018. The Council responded on 4 June 2018 at stage one of its complaints procedure. Mr and Mrs B requested to go to stage two on 7 June 2018. The Council replied on 22 June 2018 but did not progress the complaint to stage two. Meanwhile the youth worker (YW) started work with Z meeting up on a regular basis and maintaining contact with Mr and Mrs B. Z was also seen by the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS).

Assessment 2: September - October 2018

15. The home situation deteriorated again in September 2018. Following a referral from Z’s sister’s (X) school raising concerns about the impact of Z’s behaviour on her, MASH recommended carrying out a Child and Family assessment. Mrs B had serious concerns about Z’s aggression and felt they had reached the point where Z may need to go into care.
16. On 21 September 2018 the Council agreed to allocate the case to a social worker to carry out an assessment of both children. The Council did not allocate the case to SW2 until 2 October 2018. SW2 contacted Mr and Mrs B by phone the following day and visited them at home on 4 October 2018.
17. SW2 completed the assessment on 16 October 2018. She concluded both Z and X should be treated as children in need and provided with services: Z would continue to work with YW and another social worker. The assessment still recorded that Z was not disabled and there was no record that the content had been shared with Mr and Mrs B.

Section 20 accommodation: October 2018

18. Shortly after this Mrs B asked the Council to accommodate Z as the situation at home had deteriorated and they could no longer manage Z’s behaviour. He was damaging the house, being verbally abusive to Mrs B and the family were all scared of him. The Council found a placement in a residential care home and Z moved in on 20 October 2018. Mrs B felt the placement was not suitable. The Council said this was a short-term plan and longer-term care would be decided. Z had a link worker (LW) at the placement.
19. The cases were reallocated to a new social worker on 24 October 2018, but no contact was made with the family or the children. LW sent two emails to the new social worker during November 2018 but had no reply. The Commissioning team also requested an update on the plan for Z and said they had identified a possible provider nearer to Z’s school. There is no record of a reply to this query.
20. Z’s case was allocated to a new social worker (SW3) on 18 December 2018 because the previous one had left the Council. SW3 contacted Z on that day to introduce herself and arrange a visit. He said he could not meet until January and that he had had difficulty getting in contact with his social worker in recent weeks.
21. Mr and Mrs B were unhappy that another social worker had been allocated to the case and had contacted Z directly. Z spent regular nights at home with his family and staff queried why the placement was needed if parents were fine for him to be at home. Z stayed at home and with friends over the Christmas period returning to the placement on 6 January 2019.

2019

22. SW3 was on leave until 7 January 2019. She visited Z and his parents at the home on 10 January 2019 to introduce herself. Mr and Mrs B said they were unclear of the social worker role and what support they could offer.
23. A social work manager intervened in the case on 23 January 2019 and said they had agreed with the head of service that all efforts must be made to transition Z back home. They proposed involving an edge of care worker to do some work with Mr and Mrs B and Z to explore this option. If this was not successful, thought should be given to a possible placement move. The case was allocated to a more experienced social worker (SW4) on 25 January 2019
24. A professionals meeting was held on 29 January 2019. The case notes show the meeting summarised Z’s situation, discussed the possibility of Z moving back home and noted the plan for Z was still being developed by the new social work team. A family group conference was suggested. This is a voluntary process led by family members, to plan and make decisions for a child at risk.
25. A child in care review was held in early February 2019. Mr and Mrs B asked again for their complaint to go to stage two and the Council appointed an Investigating officer.
26. The next meeting in the case records was manager oversight on 5 March 2019. It noted no progress had been made with the family group conference, but the plan was still for Z to return home. It was also noted that he needed a pathway plan (a care plan detailing the services and support needed by the young person).
27. A family support practitioner visited the family home on 6 March 2019. He spoke to Mrs B who said she did not wish Z to return home and advised he had an opportunity to go to the USA which he would be taking up. The worker reported back to the social worker but did not consider there was a further role for him. At this point Z was still at school and receiving tutoring.
28. SW4 visited Mrs B, Z and X at home on 30 April 2019 to make a start on Z’s pathway plan. They discussed why Mrs B felt Z could not return home. Mrs B questioned why it had to be one place or the other and why it could not be a shared care arrangement. SW4 considered Z was settled in his current placement: it offered him stability and he had good relationships with his keyworkers. But the suitability of the placement would be kept under review as part of the pathway planning.
29. On 21 May 2019 a team manager reviewed the case. She questioned whether the assessments/communication to date had properly considered all aspects of the case. She noted:
• Z was spending, regular and increased periods at home, with no reported incidents;
• a further assessment had been recommended but not yet completed;
• it was unclear why a return home with professional support and work had been ruled out;
• the parents’ views and preferences had not been fully explored or challenged;
• little information had been gathered about the therapy abroad or ongoing support from CAMHS;
• details of the family’s support network had not been explored or recorded; and
• the threshold for accommodating Z did not appear to be met and Z had expressed the wish to return home.
30. The manager made a list of action points including:
• obtain an update of the frequency of Z’s absences from the placement and his views on the placement;
• review the section 20 decision to accommodate;
• complete another child and family assessment;
• obtain an update from CAMHS, education and other professionals.
• direct work with Mr and Mrs B; and,
• contingency plan/pathway plan – preparation for independence.
31. The case was considered a week later at a permanence tracker meeting and the manager presented her views. The meeting decided that the plan should be to rehabilitate Z home by the end of the school term, with a robust support plan involving the fostering service and his current placement.
32. SW4, LW, Mr and Mrs B and the family therapist attended a planning meeting on 24 May 2019. They discussed possible options for the future including accessing a training flat, supported semi-independent accommodation or returning home with respite.
33. In July 2019 Z went on holiday with his family. The placement asked the Council who had authorised this. The Team Manager commented that the Council had not authorised it and were not aware. They said it highlighted the inappropriate use of the placement in this case: evidence suggested the family were able to manage Z’s behaviour and the outstanding assessment could be completed at the family home. The agreed actions were to complete the assessment as soon as possible and hold a legal planning meeting.
34. The staff at the placement raised concerns about progress with planning for semi-independence so Z could be nearer to his college at the start of the new term. They asked for an update in mid-August 2019 and the beginning of September 2019. LW requested a further update on 25 September 2019. A senior manager also asked for an update on 27 September 2019. They noted the high level of Z’s absence from the placement and their view it was not a viable use of the placement.

Assessment 3: October 2019

35. Another social worker (SW5) was allocated to the case and completed the assessment in mid-October 2019. The assessment said Z was disabled. It included the view of the CAMHS therapist who had concerns about the negative impact on the family if Z returned home. It also included the view of the family support parenting practitioner (who visited Mrs B in March 2019): he said Z could not return home as he was out of parental control and his levels of aggression would have a significant impact on Z. Although YW was no longer working for the Council, Mr and Mrs B employed him on a private basis to support Z. SW5 said Z could make basic meals, use public transport, tend to personal hygiene, do laundry and tidy his room with prompting and had age-appropriate self-care skills. He had gained good GCSEs and was now at a different college. The social worker said Z would need further support in developing independent living skills such as budgeting and managing a tenancy.
36. SW5 concluded that Z could not return to the family home and should remain as a looked after child. He needed longer-term planning via a pathway plan overseen by leaving care services. SW5 considered the current placement provided respite for Z and the family when tensions were high but was not an appropriate use of resources and did not provide permanence for Z. SW5 suggested a semi-independent placement could be most appropriate for him.
37. SW5 recorded the views of Z, X and Mr and Mrs B on the assessment.
38. Over the next few months, the Council discussed accommodation options for Z. Mr and Mrs B felt that stand-alone accommodation with floating support would be best for Z given that he was easily influenced by other people. The Council felt he would benefit from a more supported environment.
39. The Council held a placement meeting at the beginning of December 2019 attended by Mr and Mrs B, SW5, the social worker from the new children in care team, LW and the CAMHS therapist. Three accommodation options were discussed, two put forward by the Council and one by Mr and Mrs B. Mr and Mrs B rejected one option as inappropriate due to its location and type of accommodation and they felt Z would be negatively influence by other residents in the other supported accommodation suggested by the Council. They preferred their option of solo accommodation with floating support which was supported by the therapist. LW questioned whether Z was able to live independently. The meeting agreed that further discussion with managers should take place over Mr and Mrs B’s preferred option, supported by the CAMHS therapist.
40. After further discussion over the same points, Mr and Mrs B expressed frustration with the Council’s approach, particularly the ever-changing social work input. In March 2020 a Team Manager intervened to try and formulate a plan for when Z turned 18 (May 2020). They said Z needed assistance to complete a housing application, he needed to meet his personal adviser from the leaving care team who would support him through the transition and the Council needed to find temporary accommodation for Z.

Stage two complaint: March – October 2019

41. On 11 March 2019, the Council confirmed it would investigate Mr and Mrs B’s complaint at stage two of the complaints procedure. The Investigating officer (IO) interviewed Mr and Mrs B on 28 March 2019 and formulated a statement of complaint, which contained 23 heads of complaint. IO then interviewed a number of officers involved in the case during July 2019. They produced their report in August 2019. But a copy was not sent to Mr and Mrs B until October 2019 when the Council sent its adjudication response.
42. The IO fully upheld 17 parts of the complaint, partially upheld two, did not uphold two, made no finding on one and said one was outside the jurisdiction of the process. The upheld complaints included:
• The stage one complaint response was inadequate.
• The Council should have escalated the complaint to stage two in June 2018 and prevented the nine-month delay in starting the process.
• The Council should have recognised in February and October 2018 that Z was disabled and had complex needs. The decision-making around this point was unclear and the Council did not make a clear distinction between disabled as defined in law and being eligible for services from the children’s disability service.
• There was delay in completing the first assessment and no evidence that either the first or second assessments were shared with Mr and Mrs B.
• The Council did not provide a copy of the eligibility criteria for the children’s disability service or make the information publicly available until August 2018.
• There was a lack of social worker contact for two months at the end of 2018, beginning of 2019, no management oversight and poor communication with Mr and Mrs B.
• The frequent changes in social worker (although sometimes unavoidable due to transfers to different teams) made it difficult for Z to build a meaningful relationship with any of them.
43. IO also commented that even though they understood that Mr and Mrs B attached a high level of importance to designating their son as disabled, they had found no evidence that the failure to do so affected the services Z received.
44. IO made a number of recommendations including provide an apology to Mr and Mrs B, rigorous monitoring to prevent drift and delay in processes, improved communication to assist collaborative working and share the disability service eligibility criteria with Mr and Mrs B.
45. The Council sent its adjudication response with the stage two report to Mr and Mrs B on 29 October 2019. Apart from a few minor differences the Council agreed with the findings and apologised to Mr and Mrs B. It offered them the opportunity to refer their complaint to a stage three panel.
46. In November 2019 Mr and Mrs B requested to take their complaint to stage three. The Council contacted our office and asked if we would accept an early referral. It said it had offered Mr and Mrs B £200 compensation but did not think it could achieve any more.
47. We agreed to investigate the complaint. Our investigation has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of this process the Council has provided a significant amount of information including Z’s case records and assessments and information about the issues facing children eligible for services from the disabled children’s team: all the children receiving services from this team have disabilities which substantially impact on their ability to carry out daily living skills and are completely dependent on carers to complete tasks such as washing, dressing, being fed and using the toilet. Most are unable to mobilise and have significant health issues requiring constant support and supervision. which can be life-threatening. None attend mainstream education.

Analysis

Complaint process delay

48. The whole process was excessively delayed, taking 18 months from April 2018 until October 2019. This caused Mr and Mrs B significant frustration in addition to the time and trouble involved in chasing up the issues.
49. I also consider the delay meant that the findings and recommendations arising from the investigation had little impact on the ongoing actions and little improvement or progress was noted.

Disabled?

50. The Council should have recognised as part of the assessment process that Z was disabled due to his conditions. But the Council was also entitled to reach the view that he was not eligible for services from the disabled children’s team.
51. The Council’s communication around the issue of disability was poor and it should have made clear the distinction between disability under the law and being eligible for services from the disabled children’s team. The failure to do so caused distress to Mr and Mrs B and left them with uncertainty as to whether Z had received the services he should have done.
52. But I agree with IO’s conclusion that there is no evidence that Z missed out on any services due to this issue. It is apparent that Z did not fit the criteria for the disabled children’s team. He received initial support from a targeted youth worker and then received support from different social work teams. However, I do agree that the Council should have provided Mr and Mrs B with the eligibility criteria for that service when they disputed the assessment in April 2018. Even though the criteria were not published until August 2018 the Council should have been able to explain to Mr and Mrs B why the service was not appropriate for Z’s needs.

Social worker change and lack of contact

53. I accept that a certain degree of social worker change is to be expected due to turnover of staff and referrals to more appropriate teams and in many cases is unavoidable. However, Z had at least six social workers over 18 months, which meant it was very difficult for him to build a trusting relationship with any of them or gain any sort of continuity. He, and his parents, also lacked an understanding of what the social worker could do for him and what support they could provide.
54. This issue was exacerbated by prolonged periods when social workers did not contact Z or Mr and Mrs B at all or where it is unclear from the case records what action was being taken. For example, a social worker was allocated to the case on 24 October 2018 but made no contact until another social worker was allocated in December 2018. She did not make substantive contact until the beginning of January 2019 and another social worker was allocated on 25 January 2019 following complaints by Mr and Mrs B. This meant there was a gap of three months, directly after Z had been accommodated on a supposed short-term basis, with little social worker input or support.

Delay in assessments and pathway plan

55. There was an unacceptable delay in completing a pathway plan for Z. The Council first noted it was required in March 2019 and one of the social workers met Z and Mr and Mrs B with a view to starting it in April 2019. However, the completed document was not produced until June 2020. This was fault.
56. The Team Manager noted in May 2019 that an assessment had been recommended in March 2019 but not started. The assessment was not completed until October 2019. This was too long.
57. These delays contributed towards a general lack of focus and progress in working out what support Z and his parents needed and where he should live. This was identified in May 2019 by a Team Manager and by the Investigating Officer. Meetings were held and discussions had on regular occasions particularly around whether Z should remain in the placement or return home with support. But no clear decision was reached until the assessment of October 2019 when SW5 decided Z should not return home and suggested a semi-independent placement.
58. Even then the Council failed to progress this to a concrete plan rejecting the placement preferred by Mr and Mrs B but unable to find a suitable alternative. No accommodation was found for Z before he reached his 18th birthday and Z remained living in a placement initially found on an emergency basis to meet an immediate crisis. This was fault which caused uncertainty and distress to Z and Mr and Mrs B.
59. I cannot conclude the placement was inappropriate because Z formed a good relationship with his link worker and developed a pattern of staying at home with his family and friends on a regular and increasing basis. SW4 considered the placement provided stability for Z. However, this arrangement was never formalised or assessed as suitable; it rather came about by default. I also cannot see any evidence that the Council provided support to develop Z’s independent living skills, identified as necessary throughout this period by different professionals. Mr and Mrs B have been left with uncertainty as to whether the outcome could have been different.

Agreed action

60. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B, I recommended the Council (within one month of my final decision), pay Mr and Mrs B:
• £300 for the delays in the complaints process; and
• £500 for the uncertainties caused by the failures in the assessment and planning process for Z.
61. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

62. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused by the fault and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman