Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to offer an appropriate financial remedy after it upheld her complaint about the lack of support provided to her son, who I will refer to as D, for roughly three years. The Council was at fault. The financial remedy offered by the Council does not reflect the level of injustice caused to Mrs C and D. Because of the fault, Mrs C and D suffered distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments and issue a staff briefing.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complains the financial remedy the Council offered to her after it upheld her complaint is not proportionate to the injustice caused to her and her son, who I will refer to as D. She says the Council did not evidence how it had considered our remedy guidance when it offered her the financial remedy.
2. Mrs C says the Council’s actions have impacted D and her family’s mental and physical health; caused D’s challenging behaviours to deteriorate; and caused stress to her.
3. Mrs C would like the Council to offer her a proportionate financial remedy with an explanation of how it considered our remedy guidance.

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 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(i), 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s offered financial remedy and whether this is proportionate to the injustice caused to Mrs C and D.
8. I have not investigated the substantive issues Mrs C complained to the Council about. This is because the substantive matters have already been appropriately considered through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. As such, we will not reinvestigate these matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read Mrs C’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the telephone.
10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mrs C 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

Children’s statutory complaint procedure

12. 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.
13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Back to top

What happened

18. Mrs C complained to the Council about Child in Need matters relating to her son, D. She says the Council failed to provide support for D for roughly three years which had a detrimental impact to him, Mrs C, and their family. The Council considered the complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
19. At stage two, the Council apologised to Mrs C and offered:
• £150 to recognise the delay in the complaint procedure;
• £100 to recognise any stress and anxiety caused to her by the Council’s failings; and
• £300 for D, to recognise where the Council did not provide the service he should have received.
20. At stage three, the panel recommended the Council revisit the financial remedy it offered to Mrs C at stage two, with appropriate reference to our guidance. As a result, the Council offered Mrs C an increased financial remedy of £1,200. It told her this was made up of an additional £500 to recognise the gaps in the service and the resulting stress, bringing the total for these elements to £800. It also offered an additional £250 to recognise the time and trouble caused to Mrs C in bringing her complaint to the review panel, when the Council says it could have resolved the issues sooner. This brought the total for this element to £400.
21. Mrs C met with the Council to discuss concerns she had about the outcome of her complaint, particularly the financial remedy offered by the Council. She felt it was not in line with our guidance and did not reflect the injustice caused. Following this, the Council wrote to Mrs C to explain having reviewed the offer, it felt it was a fair outcome.
22. Mrs C later brought her complaint to us. She told us the Council did not refer to how it had followed our guidance when it increased the financial remedy at stage three, or later, when the Council further wrote to her after meeting with her to discuss her concerns about it. Mrs C says the Council’s final offer of £1,200 is not proportionate to the injustice caused and she would like it to increase its offer.

Back to top

Analysis

23. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
24. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
25. Our guidance on remedies says the following:
• For distress, where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment of up to £500. This will reflect circumstances including the severity of the distress; the length of time involved; the number of people affected; and the vulnerability of the people affected.
• For time and trouble, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of up to £500 where there has been a fault in the way the Council considered the complaint, meaning the injustice of time and trouble is above what is considered usual.
26. The Council’s final proposed financial remedy is separated into two parts. The first part involves a symbolic payment to recognise the gaps in the service provided to D, and the resulting distress. The Council has accepted there were inconsistencies in support being provided by it; there were times when more efforts could have been made to support the family; and there were delays in making decisions about how the Council could arrange the support to effectively meet the family’s needs. D missed out on support for almost three and a half years between the end of 2019 to Spring 2023, including respite services and support in the home. As such, I do not consider £800 to be proportionate to the injustice caused. In the circumstances of this case, a higher payment of £1,000 to D is appropriate to reflect the distress caused by the missed support.
27. There has also been distress caused to Mrs C which the Council’s financial remedy does not proportionately account for. During the period of missed support, Mrs C solely cared for D. She had no respite from this role as D’s carer. The lack of respite from these responsibilities led to Mrs C experiencing health issues herself, and she says her physical and mental health has deteriorated. Mrs C also spent a significant amount of time chasing the Council trying to get support in place for D. This caused her considerable and prolonged distress over this period. I therefore consider a payment of £1,000 to Mrs C should be made to reflect the distress caused to her by the missed support.
28. The second part of the Council’s final proposed financial remedy involves a symbolic payment to recognise the time and trouble caused to Mrs C. The Council has accepted during the complaint procedure it was not evident the correct procedure was always followed in line with statutory guidance, which led to delays in the process. There was also additional time and trouble caused to Mrs C after the complaint procedure had concluded. The stage three panel recommended the Council should further consider its financial remedy offered, with reference to our guidance. While the Council did further consider the financial remedy, it did not detail how it had been considered against our guidance. This meant Mrs C had to contact the Council further about this outside of the complaint procedure. As such, I do not consider £400 to be adequate to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to her. A payment of £500 at the top end of the scale would be proportionate. I have also made a service improvement recommendation below to reflect this.

Back to top

Action

29. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs C and D by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay D £1,000 to acknowledge the distress caused by the loss of support.
• Pay Mrs C £1,000 to acknowledge the distress caused to her by the loss of support.
• Pay Mrs C £500 to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to her.
30. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will also issue a staff briefing to adjudicating officers involved in the statutory complaint procedure. The briefing should remind them of the importance of outlining how financial remedies have been considered against our guidance, on cases where the outcome of stage two or the stage three panel has instructed the Council to do so.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I uphold Mrs C’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman