Summary: Mr B complained to the Council about the service his brother received from children’s services. The Council considered this complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Mr B says there was fault with the Council’s complaint investigation. He is unhappy with the behaviour of the Chair of the stage three panel and not being able to use a projector. He says the Council did not make adjustments for his learning difficulty. The Council was at fault for a short delay in its stage 3 complaint response, but we do not consider this to have caused Mr B or his family significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained to the Council about the service his brother, Mr C, received from children’s services. The Council considered this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Mr B says there was fault with the Council’s complaint investigation. He complains:
• the chair of the stage three panel was dismissive, unwelcoming, and rude;
• he was not allowed to use a projector at the panel meeting;
• the Council did not make adjustments for his learning difficulty; and
• the stage 3 panel report did not list all relevant legislation.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s complaint handling.
3. I have not reinvestigated the substantive matters of Mr B’s complaint because the Council considered these under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless a complainant can point to and evidence serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
8. Mr B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

9. The handling and consideration of complaints under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages. (Department of Education, 2006, Statutory guidance for local authority children’s services on representations and complaints procedures)
10. Stage One: Staff at point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint.
11. Stage Two: An investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent, and fair.
12. The IO writes a stage two report which includes:
• details of findings, conclusions and outcomes are against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and
• recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
13. Once the IO has finished the report, the council’s Adjudicating Officer (AO) will prepare a response (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
14. Stage Three: A review panel considers the adequacy of the stage two investigation and tries to find a resolution for the complainant. The panel must consist of three independent people. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 19(2) and 20(1)).
15. The council must send its response to the panel’s recommendations to the complainant within 15 days of receiving the panel’s report. The response should set out how the council will respond to the recommendations and what actions it will take (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
16. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:
• 10 days at stage 1 (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or extra time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage 2 (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to ask for a Review Panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage 3;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the local authority to respond to the findings (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).

What happened

17. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
18. In July 2019, Mr B wrote to the Council to complain about the care and support arrangements for his brother, Mr C. The Council registered Mr B’s complaint at stage 2 of the statutory procedure. It decided to bypass stage 1 because it had already explained to Mr B what support it was giving to Mr C and why. The Council decided the case would benefit from independent scrutiny.
19. The Council appointed an IO and IP in July 2019. They met Mr B and agreed a statement of complaint in August 2019.
20. Mr B’s complaints are summarised below:
• Complaint one: A referral made in February 2005 did not lead to the provision of a service.
• Complaint two: No services or resources were provided following an assessment in May 2006.
• Complaint three: A further referral was made in April 2007, but no service was put in place.
• Complaint four: At first the Disabled Children’s Team refused to carry out an assessment in response to a referral made in November 2018.
• Complaint five: In response to the referral made in November 2018 the Team Manager said Mr C was not known to Children’s Social Care, which was untrue.
• Complaint six: Assessments carried out in 2019 identified Mr C had unmet need. It therefore follows that Children’s Social Care failed to correctly assess and meet Mr C’s needs between 2005 to 2019.
• Complaint seven: In June 2019, the Council awarded Mr C 40 support hours a week for him to access the community during Easter and May half-term. However, the Council did not award any support hours for home care.
• Complaint eight: The care package of 15 hours a week agreed by Children’s Services in 2019 was inconsistent with care packages agreed for Mr C and his brother by Adult Services.
• Complaint nine: Services offered to Mr C did not address his personal care needs.
• Complaint ten: This was a repeat of complaint nine.
21. Mr B said he wanted the Council to compensate the family financially for failing to provide services and causing distress and inconvenience. He also wanted the Council to apologise and review its practice.
22. In September 2019, the IO submitted his stage two findings. The IO upheld complaints four and five. He did not uphold the other complaints. The IO recommended the Council apologise to Mr C for refusing to carry out an assessment in November 2018 and for stating he was unknown to Children’s Social Care. The IP agreed with the IO’s findings.
23. The Council sent its stage two adjudication in October 2019. It agreed with the IOs findings. It apologised for not accepting Mr C’s referral in November 2018 and for wrongly saying Mr C was not known to Children’s Social Care.
24. In December 2019, Mr B asked for all the complaints that were not upheld at stage two to be considered at stage three. He submitted a report for the stage 3 panel. The report included information about him and his family, including family photographs. In the report Mr B asked for the use of electronic equipment at the panel meeting including use of a projector.
25. The Council told Mr B it would try to get a projector. It asked Mr B to provide the information he wanted show on the projector in advance so it could be given to the panel before the meeting. The Council explained the format of the meeting and invited him to raise any queries he had. The day before the panel meeting, the Council advised it had secured a projector.
26. The Council held the stage three panel in January 2020. Mr B said he wanted to use a projector to show the panel family photographs to humanise his complaints. The Chair decided the panel did not need to see Mr B’s photographs and therefore a projector was not needed. The Chair explained the purpose of the meeting was to consider the stage two investigation and adjudication. Mr B said he had a learning difficulty and needed to read from a prepared statement, which he did. The attendees, including Mr B, discussed each complaint that was not upheld at stage two.
27. The panel issued a report. The report gave a summary of the meeting; their recommendations for resolution and the reasons for these. The panel advised it could not make a finding about complaint one and did not uphold the others. The panel’s report recommended the Council consider Mr B’s request for financial redress.
28. Mr B made a complaint about the Chair of the panel. Mr B said the Chair was dismissive, unwelcoming, and rude; did not allow him to use a projector; and did not make reasonable adjustments for his learning difficulty. Mr B said the Council failed to meet its legal duties under the Equality Act 2010.
29. The Council spoke to the Chair and three other attendees of the panel meeting: an independent panel member, the Head of Service, and the IO. All attendees said they were unaware of Mr B having a learning difficulty before he shared this information during the meeting. The attendees reported the Chair was respectful and accommodating to Mr B, and chaired the meeting effectively. The independent panel member said she supported the Chair’s decision not to allow Mr B to use a projector to show family photographs.
30. The Council sent Mr B its stage three adjudication letter in February 2020. It agreed with the stage three panel’s findings. It advised it had decided not to make a time and trouble payment because there was no fault in how Mr B’s complaint was considered.
31. It addressed the complaint Mr B made about the Chair of the panel. It explained it had spoken to other members of the panel and no one considered the Chair’s behaviour to have been unprofessional. It advised the Chair said it was not his intention to cause offence or upset. The Council reminded Mr B it told him in advance a projector may not be available at the panel meeting and asked if he wanted to add anything to his stage three submission. The Council said he had not shared that he had a learning difficulty before the panel meeting or asked for any adjustments to be made because of it.

Analysis

32. The Council followed the procedure set out in the Department of Education’s 2006 statutory guidance on children’s services representations and complaints. It adhered to the timescales at each stage apart from the stage three adjudication. The Council gave Mr B its stage three adjudication four days later than the 15-day deadline. Although this was fault, the short delay is not considered to have caused Mr B significant injustice.
33. Mr B complained about what happened during the stage three panel meeting. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaint. It asked other attendees about the Chair’s behaviour during the meeting. The attendees stated the Chair’s behaviour was professional. These accounts are supported by the minutes of the meeting. The minutes record the Chair’s contributions which were appropriate and professional.
34. The Chair of the meeting decided it was not necessary for Mr B to use a projector to show the panel photographs of his family, Mr B had included a number in his stage three submission. He explained the purpose of the stage three panel was to examine the stage two investigation and adjudication, not to reinvestigate the complaints. The Chair did not consider it helpful to the panels deliberations to see family photographs. This was a decision the Chair was entitled to make.
35. I found no evidence that Mr B told the Council or the panel about his learning difficulty, how it affects him or any reasonable adjustments he needed prior to the panel meeting.
36. The Department of Education’s 2006 statutory guidance on children’s services representations and complaints requires the stage 3 panel to produce a written report setting out a brief summary of the representations, their recommendations for the resolution of the issues, and the reasons for them. The panel’s report fulfilled this requirement. It did not need to include a list of all relevant legislation or a complete record of the discussion at the panel meeting.
37. I considered the Council’s decision not to provide financial redress for the upheld complaints, complaints four and five. At the Ombudsman, we may recommend a financial payment where a Council’s fault has caused the complainant significant injustice. I do not consider the Council’s fault caused significant injustice and explain why below:
• Complaint four: The Council initially decided Mr C did not meet the criteria for a Disabled Children’s assessment. Mr B challenged the decision and a fortnight later the Council reversed its decision and allocated a social worker to complete the assessment. The Council’s fault is not considered to have caused Mr B significant injustice given the ease and speed with which it was resolved.
• Complaint five: The Council wrongly stated in an assessment of Mr C he had no previous involvement with Children’s Social Care. There is no evidence that this fault affected the Council’s assessment of Mr C, therefore, the fault did not cause significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B's complaint. There was fault by the Council, but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr B or his family.

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. I have not reinvestigated the substantive matters of Mr B’s complaint because the Council considered these under the children’s statutory complaint procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman