Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her request for a parent carers assessment, the children’s statutory complaints process, and how it communicated with her. Overall, we agreed with the Council’s stage two findings. However, the remedy proposed was not adequate to acknowledge the impact its delays had on her, and it did not consider the significantly delayed complaints handling. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment, and carry out service improvements recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained about the Council’s handling of her request to help her support her disabled son (Y) who had been placed in her care as a looked after child. She said it:
• failed to progress an agreed medical intervention for a health professional to explain records, history and decision making, or for the Council’s social worker to do so;
• caused delays to complete a parent carers assessment. She also disagreed with its reason for the delays and said it wrongly asked her for medical and financial information in the process;
• failed to have a formal process and policy in place for the parent carer’s needs assessment process;
• caused delay in providing a support worker to support her with some communication; and
• caused delay in the children’s statutory complaints process and she remains dissatisfied with some outcomes.
2. Mrs X said, as a result, she experienced distress, uncertainty, and had a loss of some support.

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 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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Mrs X’s complaint relates to events since Spring 2023. This is more than 12 months before she brought her concerns to our attention, parts of her complaint are therefore late. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider her concerns from Spring 2023 until the Council’s final complaint response in September 2024.
9. I will not investigate any matters which occurred before Spring 2023, nor after the Council’s final complaint response in September 2024, as these are either late or the Council has not had an opportunity to respond through its complaints process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
12. 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 found

Relevant law, guidance, and policy

Children in need and care orders

13. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)
14. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.
15. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 allows a court to make a care order for a child who is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. A care order places the child in the care of a local authority, who then shares parental responsibility with the parents. The local authority can then decide where the child lives and make arrangements for their protection.

Carer’s assessments

16. The Children Act 1989 (Schedule 2 paragraph 96)(1)(c)) and Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011 requires councils to provide a range of services designed to assist family carers of disabled children to continue to provide care, or to do so more effectively, by giving them breaks from caring. These services must include a range of daytime care, overnight care and leisure activities. This range of services must be set out in a ‘short breaks statement’ and include details of any eligibility criteria.
17. The Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) places specific duties on councils to assess the needs of carers with parental responsibility for disabled children as well as young carers. Councils have an obligation to assess parent carers on the ‘appearance of need’ (Children Act 1989, section 17ZD/E), or if an assessment is requested by the parent, and to provide a written copy of the assessment to the parent carer.

The children’s statutory complaints process

18. 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.
19. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
25. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also 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.

What happened

26. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
27. Mrs X’s son (Y) has complex needs and is subject to a care order. He has a care plan which sets out the support he should receive to meet his needs.
28. In 2022 the Council placed Y back in Mrs X’s care as a disabled looked after child. It agreed support should be put in place to assist him and Mrs X with the arrangement.
29. In 2023 Mrs X asked for a parent carers assessment to be completed. She also asked for other support. This included the Council should arrange:
• for a health professional to explain health records and decision making regarding Y as this was unclear to her;
• support to take Y to his health and medical appointments;
• for its finance team to explain queries around respite payments, confirm Y could see a private physio whilst on NHS waiting list, and provide access to his personal education plan (PEP) documents; and
• for a social worker to be allocated to provide support and to discuss issues relating to her care responsibilities, as recommended by an Independent Social Work report commissioned by the Council.
30. A Looked After Child review was held in July 2023 in which recommendations from the Independent Social Work report was discussed.
31. In late 2023 Mrs X complained to the Council as not all her request had been resolved.
32. In response the Council explained concerns around respite payments, PEP documents, and the private physio had been resolved. However, it:
• apologised its parent carers assessment had been delayed. It had explained this was due to a possible change of placement, but this should have been prioritised when it became clear Y would remain with Mrs X;
• had made attempts for health colleagues to complete the agreed medical intervention Mrs X had requested. However, none of the health professionals had agreed to do so;
• acknowledged Mrs X wanted help with medical appointments for Y, but he had been placed with her, and it was confident she could meet his needs for such appointments as set out in the Care Plan; and
• would not allocate a supervising social worker as this was not required when a child is placed with a parent with parental responsibility. However, it had suggested fortnightly meetings with Mrs X to support communication.
33. In December 2023 a meeting took place between the Council and Mrs X, the parent carers assessment started, and the allocated social worker met with Mrs X.
34. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to the stage two process relating to the four outstanding concerns. Shortly after she raised another point of her complaint. This related to the Council’s failure to have a clear policy and forms for the parent carer’s assessment process.
35. In response the Council said it had worked on the carers assessment process since June 2023. This included co-production of the process, creating templates for staff, and it intended to roll out training for staff on the process. It also said it would support Y with his medical appointment until the medical intervention was resolved or he could attend independently, but Mrs X needed to raise data requests regarding medical information for Y. It had also decided to allocate a family support worker to support her communication with the Council, this was instead of bi-weekly meetings.
36. The Council told Mrs X it would also update Y’s needs through a new assessment with a focus on his future goals, which would help inform Mrs X’s parent carers assessment. Mrs X did not want this as he already had an assessment in 2023 and she believed this would delay her carers assessment further.
37. In February 2024 Mrs X told the Council she wanted her complaint escalated to the stage two process of the Children’s statutory complaints process.
38. Shortly after, the Council completed Mrs X’s parent carers assessment and shared this with her a few weeks later with some minor changes following her comments. During the process the Council asked Mrs X for information and records about her health and financial circumstances.
39. Mrs X shared some information but felt this was inappropriate and unnecessary. She objected to its request for access to her medical records and financial disclosure at that point in the process.
40. The Council started a needs assessment for Y in February 2024 which was completed in April 2024.
41. In March 2024 the Council allocated the investigating officer (IO) and independent (IP) person to consider her complaint. The IO:
• contacted Mrs X a few weeks later to explain the process and arrange a meeting with her, but Mrs X did not see the email which caused a three-week delay. They subsequently agreed on a meeting date;
• met Mrs X in April 2024 in which the IO shared a statement of her complaint. Mrs X provided her statement of complaint four weeks later;
• sought files and information from the Council, and met with relevant staff over Summer 2024; and
• produced a report in August 2024 setting out the findings and recommendations, which the IP agreed with.
42. The Council accepted the IO’s findings and recommendations. It shared its stage two complaint response in September 2024. It found:
• Medical intervention – the action was to be completed by a health professional. The Council had done what it could to progress this with various health professionals and informed Mrs X. However, this had not been successful as it was outside the Council’s control. It set out the attempts it had made as recommended by the IO. It apologised, but did therefore not accept it had caused injustice to Mrs X;
• Delay in parent carers assessment – the Council accepted it had caused delay between March to December 2023 in the process when it should have treated the case with priority. It apologised and explained this was partly due to time having been spent to find Y a placement when Mrs X raised concerns about supporting Y, and the unique circumstances around Y being placed back with his parent;
• Delay in parent carer assessment due to the needs assessment for Y – the Council did not accept it caused delay from January 2024. It explained there were competing policies and regulations which meant it needed to assess Y’s future needs. It also said Mrs X’s assessment was completed two months before Y’s needs assessment. It did not agree her concerns were ignored as it had considered and explained its reasons for the actions;
• Request to access Mrs X’s health and financial information – the Council found it was reasonable in the circumstances to have requested this to enable it to properly understand her needs and circumstances when caring for Y. However, it apologised and accepted it did not have a needs assessment policy setting this out, and it was in the process of creating one. It had also not explained the reasons for the requests to Mrs X which meant her reasonable adjustments had not been adhered to;
• Delay in informing Mrs X it had no policy for carers assessment process – the Council said it had started developing this in 2023. However, it accepted it had caused delay in informing Mrs X about the lack of policy, and it should have had this in place during the last 10 years as this was required under the Children and Families Act 2014. The policy and a flow chart had since been created, and training was planned for its staff;
• Using a form/ template which was not finalised – the Council did not accept the use of its generic form disadvantaged Mrs X. This was because the form allowed for it to be adapted to the unique circumstances, and reasonable adjustments considerations could be included; and
• Allocation of a supervising social worker to support communication – the Council found it had no duty to do so under the placement. However, it had a duty to support a parent if they are caring for a child subject to a Care Order. The issue was resolved in January 2024 when a family support worker was allocated. It also made references to the vast support already in place for Mrs X and Y, including an allocated social worker and other staff. However, it would ensure Mrs X’s communication needs are clear on its casefile. It therefore did not agree it had caused her an injustice from lack of communication support prior to January 2024.
43. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s response as she believed she needed more support with Y due to his high needs which was evidenced by his previous placement, diagnosed conditions and professionals around him. She asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. Due to historical concerns, the Council and Mrs X agreed an early referral to the Ombudsman was appropriate without arranging a stage three panel.
44. In response to our enquiries the Council shared an update on the recommendations and agreed outcomes from its stage two response. It confirmed it now has a carer’s assessment policy, a flowchart, and templates which is used by staff to manage the carers assessment process, including in unique circumstances such as Mrs X’s.

Analysis and findings

45. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?

The complaint investigation

46. I found the Council stage two investigation was properly conducted, albeit there was a delay of nearly four months at stage two. Mrs X requested her complaint to be considered at stage two in February 2024. The Council had 65 working days to do this and should have issued its response by May 2024 at the latest. This was not issued until September 2024 which was fault. While some actions or requests by Mrs X contributed to the delay this was relatively limited. I am satisfied the delay caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty.
47. However, the IO reviewed and considered relevant case records as evidence, met with Mrs X and carried out interviews with relevant officers. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. There was no fault in how the Council considered the complaint, so I accept the overall findings.
48. I acknowledge Mrs X is not satisfied with the Council’s findings. In particular in regard to:
• the lack of progress on the agreed medical intervention. However, both the Council and the IO considered this and set out the reasons why this had been unsuccessful as it was not within the Council’s control.
• how it dealt with her communication support needs in 2023. The evidence shows it had regard for her needs and offered fortnightly meetings. It found it had no duty to provide her with a supervising social worker, but decided to provide a family support worker in January 2024. As it was not required to put in place the family support worker in 2023, these were decisions it was entitled to make;
• its request for health and financial information as part of her assessment process. However, I agree with the stage two investigation. While this was fault as it had no policy grounds to request this and it did not explain the reasons for the requests to Mrs X, it was appropriate in the circumstances and Mrs X had the right to refuse. I acknowledge this caused her some distress and uncertainty about how this would impact the process. An apology for this was therefore appropriate;
• its decision to link a new needs assessment for Y with a carers assessment for her. However, I am not satisfied this was inappropriate, nor did the evidence show this caused further delays; and
• the Council’s delayed handling of the children’s statutory complaints process. As set out above, this was fault which I am satisfied caused her distress and uncertainty.
49. Although, I did not find fault in the process the Council followed regarding its decision making around allocating a social worker. I have found some fault by the Council, which was not identified by the stage two investigation. This was a delay in reaching its view on how to support communications with Mrs X from the Independent Social Work report in April 2023 to when it agreed to put fortnightly meetings in place in August 2023. In addition, no regular fortnightly meetings were subsequently arranged or offered to her despite Mrs X chasing the Council. This was fault, which I am satisfied this caused Mrs X some unnecessary distress and uncertainty. This ended when the Council allocated a family support worker in January 2024.

The outcome of the Council’s investigation

50. The complaints process identified some areas of fault and set out the recommendations at stage two to remedy the injustice caused by the upheld complaints. This included apologising to Mrs X and confirmation of the Council’s actions to finalise its policy for the carer assessment process.
51. I have considered whether the remedy proposed was appropriate. In reaching my view I also had regard to the support Y and Mrs X was already receiving from the Council, and the challenges the Council faced given the changing circumstances and views from Mrs X.
52. However, I am not satisfied the Council’s apology was enough to remedy the impact its faults caused her. In particular due to its significantly delayed parent carers assessment between March to December 2023, and its significantly delayed complaints handling. I therefore found the Council should make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration, distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result.
53. The Council has provided evidence it has put in place the policy, flowchart, and templates for its staff to use for carers, or parent carers, assessments. I am satisfied it has completed the recommendations it accepted in the children’s statutory complaints process. However, its staff training on the policy and process has not yet been confirmed as completed, I have therefore made a service improvement recommendation for an update on this point.

Back to top

Action

54. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice its significantly delayed handling of the children’s statutory complaints process and action to address communication caused her;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council’s delayed parent carers assessment and to put in place agreed communication interventions; and
3. pay Mrs X a further £300 to acknowledged distress and the time & trouble she experienced as a result of the significantly delayed children’s statutory complaints process.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4. share with the Ombudsman an update on its planned training for its staff on the carers assessment policy and process; and
5. review how it can ensure the timescales in the children’s statutory complaints process are adhered to, and updates are provided to complainants when investigations are taking longer than expected. This should be within the maximum 65 days allowed for the process.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault on some parts of Mrs X’s complaint which caused her an injustice. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment, and carry out service improvements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman