Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children service’s actions. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about children service’s actions in 2019/20.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Mrs X comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s child, B, has additional needs. In November 2019, Mrs X asked the Council to carry out a ‘child in need’ assessment for B. The Council started this and had concerns that B’s siblings could be at risk of harm. It held a strategy meeting in mid December 2019. This led to a safeguarding assessment and an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in January 2020. The ICPC did not recommend a child protection or child in need plan because B had moved to another Council area to live with extended family. The Council closed its children services case.
8. In November 2020, Mrs X complained to the Council. Her lengthy complaint in essence covered:
• the Council’s lack of support to the family,
• its decision to hold an ICPC,
• the handling of the ICPC,
• the social worker’s report to the ICPC,
• that Mrs X’s report on the social worker’s report to the ICPC was not given to the attendees and
• the children services officers’ general attitude.
9. She said she wanted:
• An apology to B for the language used to explain the issues and the upset caused by the safeguarding assessment.
• Council officers to be given autism training.
10. The Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint in December 2020 and January 2021. It said it could not apologise for taking action which its officers deemed necessary in their professional opinion. And it did not agree with Mrs X’s views on the words used. It said its officers already received autism training.

Analysis

11. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council when it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. It has to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote a child’s welfare.
12. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns a child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an ICPC. The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ and setting up a safety plan. In Mrs X case the ICPC in January 2020 made neither as B had moved out of the Council’s area and the risk to the siblings had been removed.
13. The events Mrs X complains of are more than 12 months old. Mrs X says she was not able to complain to us before now because the events caused her such trauma that she decided she needed to leave it and prioritise her wellbeing so she could focus fully on caring for her family. This is not a good enough reason why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint as there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman