Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal properly with a safeguarding investigation regarding a foster family. The Council acted disproportionately, and unprofessionally. Miss X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should pay Miss X £1500.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council failed to deal with fostering properly because it:
• Conducted a disproportionate safeguarding investigation;
• Acted unprofessionally, lacking transparency and openness; and
• Failed to support her with the care of a foster child.
2. Miss X says the Council has not properly implemented the recommendations of the stage 3 panel because the apology is vague and unspecific, it is not clear that learning has been taken from the fault found, and the financial remedy offered is not appropriate.

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 an injustice, 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(i), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X 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

Law, guidance and policies

8. 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)
9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
10. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
11. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
12. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

13. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
14. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
15. When cases involve parallel criminal and child protection investigations, a police investigation will focus on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. Child protection enquiries seek to find out, on the balance of probabilities whether a child is at risk of significant harm.
16. When a council has concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than that used by the Police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Statutory Complaints Process

17. 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.
18. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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?

25. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
26. Miss X was a foster carer. Two children were placed with her. She also had one child of her own.
27. Concerns were raised in December 2022 about one of the foster children and the Council removed them from her care. She was required to have 24/7 supervision with her own child.
28. After its investigation, the Council ended all child protection measures in June 2023.
29. Miss X complained to the Council. The Council considered her complaint at stages 1, 2 and 3 of the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council partially upheld 2 out of the 3 parts to Miss X’s complaint and fully upheld the third.

Analysis

Complaints process

30. The complaints process considered Miss X’s complaints that:
• The Council’s investigation had been disproportionate and partly upheld it, finding that the initiation of the investigation was proportionate but the implementation and management of the child protection plan were flawed and intrusive;
• The Council had acted unprofessionally and upheld it finding there were multiple failures where the Council did not meet its statutory duties or Social Work England standards; and
• The Council had failed to support Miss X and partially upheld it, finding the Council did not always take a balance view of events and did not always consider Miss X’s perspective, leading to additional pressure and Miss X not feeling supported.

Recommendations

31. The complaints process also considered a series of outcomes requested by Miss X, including a detailed apology, Information about a social worker, Future support by an advocate for her child, counselling/therapy for her child, a financial payment and adding entries to case recording systems.
32. The stage 3 panel agreed to the outcomes and made a series of recommendations reflecting them.
33. The recommendation regarding an apology explicitly stated it should cover:
• Not following its own and the Safeguarding Partnership’s procedures.
• The specific delay in not lifting the supervision requirements sooner.
• The delay in processing the complaint.
• There were times when the local authority’s response was unbalanced.
• The professional recording did not effectively offer an understanding from Miss X’s perspective.
34. The recommendation in respect of a financial payment noted areas of practice for the local authority where there was undue delay, or where the local authority operated outside of their own and the Safeguarding Partnerships processes and procedures. It was recommended that the Council offers a financial remedy in relation to:
• Not adhering to statutory guidelines;
• Not fully considering the whole context of Miss X and her daughter; and
• Failing to give adequate service.

Action by the Council

35. The Council apologised to Miss X in its final complaint response, outlining the necessary points and saying it offered, “a sincere apology on behalf of the Local Authority for the faults which have been identified through this process. I appreciate that these errors caused distress to you and your family and that those delays were unnecessary and occurred at a time where you were already going through a difficult time.”

Financial remedy – delay

36. The Council says it had already made a payment of £100 to Miss X. This was a remedy in respect of delays to the statutory complaints process and agreed in a previous decision by the Ombudsman. The delays have already been remedied.

Financial remedy – fault

37. The Council also offered a financial remedy of £500, “to acknowledge the faults which have been identified through this process.
38. I have considered whether the Council’s proposed remedy is appropriate. In doing so I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, which states we may consider symbolic payments to:
• a child – harm, risk of harm, distress due to failings in a protection process.
• a family/carers – reflective of distress, frustration.
39. The Ombudsman will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. We can recommend higher payments to remedy distress where we decide it was especially severe and/or prolonged and/or taking account of personal vulnerability of those affected.
40. I have also considered an impact statement from Miss X. It is clear that Miss X and her child have suffered significant avoidable distress. This has extended over a period from December 2022 to June 2024. It is clear that these matters are still impacting Miss X to the present day.
41. I do not consider the Council’s proposed financial remedy of £500 in respect of the recommendation outlined in paragraph 33 to be wholly sufficient. Whilst the Council has proposed a financial remedy of the maximum normal amount the Ombudsman would recommend, I consider the circumstances of this case, the failures identified and the combined impact on Miss X and her child warrant a symbolic payment greater than £500.

Service improvements

42. The Council has identified some necessary service improvements as a result of Miss X’s complaint, including:
• Ensuring all social workers are up to date with training to avoid Miss X’s situation happening again; and
• Where cases span several services a singular district lead should be identified to oversee and be the primary decision maker to ensure case management is consistent.
43. I am satisfied the Council’s service improvement remedies fulfil the investigation recommendations and are appropriate.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Miss X £1,500 in respect of avoidable distress to her and her child.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman