Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about poor service from the Council’s children’s social care services. The Council upheld their complaints and offered a financial remedy, but Mr X and Ms Y said this was insufficient for the distress caused, the impact on their health and disruption to family life. The Council was at fault. The financial offer made after the stage two investigation was insufficient to remedy the injustice caused. However, it has since increased its financial offer and offered to arrange private therapeutic work for the family. These are appropriate actions. The Council will now offer these directly to Mr X and Ms Y.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complained about poor service from the Council’s children’s social care services. The Council upheld their complaints and offered a financial remedy, but Mr X and Ms Y say:
• The Council did not appropriately investigate the safeguarding allegations they made in December 2019.
• The Council has not provided evidence it has acted to improve its services, as agreed in the stage 2 adjudication letter.
• The financial remedy offered is insufficient for the distress caused, the disruption to family life and the enduring impact the Council’s actions have had on the family’s health.
2. Mr X and Ms Y want the Council to agree an increased financial remedy and to investigate their safeguarding allegations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the complaint and spoke with Ms Y about it on the phone.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent me.
8. I considered our guidance on remedies.
9. Mr X, Ms Y and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

The children’s statutory complaints procedure

10. There is a formal procedure, set out in law, which council must follow to investigate certain types of complaints. It involves three stages:
• Stage 1 - Local resolution by the Council.
• Stage 2 – an investigation by an independent investigator who will prepare a detailed report and findings. The investigation is overseen by an independent person to ensure its impartiality. The Council then issues an adjudication letter which sets out its response to the findings.
• Stage 3 – an independent panel to consider their outstanding issues.

Early referral to the Ombudsman

11. Councils should progress a complaint through at all three stages of the procedure, if this is the complainant’s wish. However, if the council is in agreement and certain conditions are met, a complainant can bring their complaint to us after Stage 2. This is known as an early referral. The conditions include that the Stage 2 investigation must have delivered:
• A very robust report;
• A complete adjudication;
• An outcome where all complaints have been upheld (or all significant complaints relating to service delivery).
12. We will consider the individual circumstances and whether the referral meets the conditions set out in the statutory guidance, before deciding whether to accept the complaint.

Safeguarding Children

13. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47). Potential outcomes of this assessment may be:
• No further action;
• A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment; or
• A decision to convene a safeguarding strategy meeting.

What happened

14. Mr X and Ms Y have a child, Z. Between August and October 2019, they were also foster carers for another child, W.
15. At the end of October, the foster care placement broke down. W moved out and was placed with another foster carer.
16. In December 2019, Mr X and Ms Y made a safeguarding allegation against W. They told the Council W had inappropriate images of Z on their phone and was sharing them and posting them on social media without their consent.
17. The Council visited W and their new foster carer and told them about the allegation. The Council and foster carer both reviewed W’s phone and ensured any images of Z were removed. The foster carer told the Council she had not seen any inappropriate images of Z on W’s phone.
18. Ms Y continued to say W still had images of Z. The Council discussed further with the foster carer who reviewed W’s phone again. The Council decided there was insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation and decided to take no further action.
19. In January 2020, W made a safeguarding allegation again Mr X. The Council discussed this with Mr X and Ms Y. The Council considered the allegation and decided to begin a safeguarding investigation. Mr X agreed to move out of the family home whilst the investigation was ongoing.
20. In February 2020 Ms Y said W still had images of Z on her phone. Council records note Ms Y’s ongoing concerns but say both the social worker and the foster carer had checked W’s phone and not found any inappropriate images. They decided no further action was needed.
21. The Council’s investigation into the safeguarding allegation against Mr X continued until July 2020. In July 2020, it closed the case with no further action.
22. Mr X and Ms Y complained to the Council in September 2020. In summary, they complained the Council:
• Did not provide adequate support when they fostered W from August to October 2019;
• Did not take the safeguarding allegation they made against W seriously in December 2019, did not investigate and did not tell them the outcome of any investigation;
• Took too long to complete its safeguarding investigation into the allegation against Mr X between January and July 2020, during which time there was inadequate assessment, poor planning and poor communication.
23. The Council investigated under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Mr X and Ms Y were unhappy with the stage 1 response and escalated to stage 2. At stage 2, the Council upheld all of their complaints. It found the Council did act appropriately in December 2019 in response to their concerns about W but did not tell them what action it had taken. For this reason, it upheld this part of the complaint.
24. In its stage 2 adjudication letter sent in April 2021, the Council:
• Apologised to Mr X and Ms Y for the poor service;
• Agreed to pay Mr X and Ms Y foster carer allowance for the time they fostered W and refund some expenses they incurred;
• Offered £500 in acknowledgement of the time Mr X spent away from the family home and the distress caused to Mr X and Ms Y by the Council’s actions;
• Said it would complete an improvement plan setting out actions it would take to improve its services. It said it would send Mr X and Ms Y a copy of this once it had written it and a further copy once all action had been completed.
25. It told them if they remained dissatisfied they could escalate the complaint to stage 3.
26. Mr X and Ms Y remained unhappy and in August 2021, the Council met with them to discuss their outstanding concerns. They told the Council the actions agreed after the stage 2 complaint did not recognise the impact the Council’s actions had on their family, in particular on Z. The Council accepted this and acknowledged that Mr X and Ms Y had lost trust in the Council. It agreed to arrange a privately funded child and family assessment for Mr X, Ms Y and Z and to arrange any therapy recommended for the family following this assessment.
27. They told Mr X and Ms Y they could still escalate the complaint to stage 3, if they wished, however, the Council did not consider this would lead to their desired outcome. It said if Mr X and Ms Y preferred, the Council would support an early referral to us.
28. Mr X and Ms Y brought the complaint to us in September 2021.
29. Mr X and Ms Y agreed to the child and family assessment and this was completed in November 2021. The report recommended Mr X, Ms Y and Z would benefit from therapeutic work and set out what this should consist of.
30. The Council offered to arrange this work for the family and said it could start in January 2022. However, Mr X and Ms Y disagreed with the report recommendations and did not agree to the therapeutic work.
31. In March 2022, the Council sent Mr X and Ms Y a copy of the service improvement action plan. It apologised for not sending them a copy of this sooner, as agreed in the stage 2 adjudication letter. It said all actions within the plan were now complete.
32. In its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged the Council’ s actions had caused the family avoidable distress. It said it had reviewed its offer of financial remedy and would increase this to £750 in recognition of the distress caused.
33. It provided evidence of training to staff and actions it has taken to improve its services.

Analysis

34. This complaint has not completed the children’s statutory complaints procedure. However, the stage 2 complaint investigation was robust with all the main points of complaint upheld and the Council agreed that an early referral to us was appropriate. This complaint meets the criteria for an early referral under the procedure.
35. In December 2019, the evidence shows the Council did act in response to Ms Y’s reported safeguarding concern. The social worker and W’s foster carer both reviewed W’s phone and social media and ensured any images of Z were removed. Neither found any evidence of inappropriate images. The Council took the action it considered appropriate at the time and found no evidence to substantiate the allegation or indicate that Z was at risk of harm. It decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a safeguarding investigation. I am satisfied the Council responded to Ms Y’s concerns appropriately. There was no fault in how it reached the decision to take no further action and so I cannot question the decision reached. The Council was not at fault.
36. After the stage 2 investigation, the Council created a service improvement action plans but did not send Mr X and Ms Y a copy as agreed in the stage 2 adjudication letter. This is fault. This caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr X and Ms Y as to whether the Council was acting to improve its services as agreed. Since bringing the complaint to us, the Council has provided Mr X and Ms Y with a copy of the plan and confirmed all actions within the plan have been completed. Although the failure to provide Mr X and Ms Y with a copy of the plan caused distress, I am satisfied the Council has acted to improve its services. The apology provided is sufficient remedy for the additional frustration caused to Mr X and Ms Y for failing to keep them updated.
37. The Council upheld Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints and accepted the Council’s actions caused considerable distress and disruption to family life. I agree with this finding. It offered £500 as financial remedy but having considered the nature of the upheld complaints, the impact on the family and our guidance on remedies, this is insufficient to remedy the injustice caused. In its enquiry response to us, the Council increased its offer of financial remedy for distress to £750. It also provided evidence that it had offered to arrange therapeutic work for the family, as recommended following the independent child and family assessment in November 2021. I consider the increased financial offer, along with the offer of private therapeutic work are appropriate actions to remedy the injustice caused. The Council should now make the increased financial offer to Mr X and Ms Y.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within one month of the Council will:
• write to Mr X and Ms Y to offer them £750 as a financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused to the family. It should pay this to them within the month if they accept.
• re-make its offer of private therapy sessions as recommended in the child and family report. It is for Mr X and Ms Y to decide whether to accept this offer.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and the Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman