Summary: We do not find fault with the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint about how it supported his disabled child and the wider family.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to support his child with disabilities and the family, including refusing a disabled facilities grant to build an extension. Mr X complained the family did not get the full respite they needed which was set out in the care plan.
2. Mr X said this caused years of unnecessary stress, strain and distress. He said it severely impacted his work, marriage and finances.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I considered the statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

What happened

11. Mr X complained to the Council that it failed to support his child with disabilities and the family, including refusing a disabled facilities grant to build an extension. Mr X complained the family did not get the full respite they needed which was set out in the care plan.
12. The Council responded at stage one. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two.
13. The investigating officer (IO) upheld some parts of Mr X’s complaint. The IO made six recommendations to the Council, including apologising, offering a payment to Mr X, and improving its service. The Council agreed to these recommendations.
14. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage three.
15. The stage three review panel largely agreed with the IO’s findings. However, the panel decided to uphold two of Mr X’s complaints that the IO had either partially upheld or not upheld.
16. The panel made 11 recommendations to the Council, mainly around how to improve the way the Council worked with Mr X and the family to support their child and the wider family better in future.
17. The Council agreed to these recommendations, and increased the amount of payment it previously offered.
18. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. 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.
20. 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.

The stage two investigation and stage three review panel

21. I have considered the stage two investigation and stage three review panel. I find they were thorough, well-balanced, and proportionate. I find no evidence of flaws that call the findings into question.
22. I have also considered the remedies proposed at stages two and three. I find they were proportionate, appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
23. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.

Stage two and stage three recommendations

24. I have considered the recommendations made to the Council by the stage two investigation and stage three review panel. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the recommendations and agreed to all of them. I am also satisfied the Council completed all the recommendations without delay.
25. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman