Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to provide support to them as Special Guardians. The Council carried out an independent investigation into their complaints and agreed to the recommendations made. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the independent investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainants whom I shall refer to as Mr X and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to provide support to them when they became Special Guardians to their two grandchildren in 2014. Mr X and Mrs Y says there has been a lack of support both emotionally and financially which has impacted onto their health and their own children. Mr X and Ms Y say the family has all suffered from a lack of space in their accommodation and the Council has failed to help.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an investigating officer and an independent person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If the Council has investigated something under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. But we may look at whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have read the papers submitted by Mr X and Mrs Y and spoken to Mrs Y about the complaint. I considered the Council’s complaint correspondence with Mr X and Mrs Y including the Stage two investigation report. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and Mrs Y and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X and Mrs Y cared for their first grandchild in April 2011. They had a second grandchild in November 2012. Both grandchildren were subject to an interim care order in 2013. In 2014 Mr X and Mrs Y became Special Guardians for the two grandchildren under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO). Special Guardianship is a formal court order which places a child or young person with someone permanently. And gives the person parental responsibility for the child. The purpose of an SGO is for the Special Guardian to have autonomy over the care of the children placed with them with minimal involvement from a Council as and when needed.
8. Mr X and Mrs Y complained to the Council in 2017. The complaints included:
• the Council’s failure to reimburse them for costs incurred when caring for the first grandchild in 2011 under an agreement.
• They felt coerced into accepting the SGO.
• They were incorrectly advised or discouraged from being legally represented in court in 2014 as the Council’s legal team would be acting for them.
• The Council did not action the Contact Order as directed by the Court of Appeal in 2014.
• The Council did not effectively manage the transition process when the children were placed with them under the SGO in 2014.
• The Council carried out an assessment to show whether there was enough living space in the family home in 2014. But despite recognising the difficulties the Council has taken no action or given financial support to resolve the issue.
• The Council had not provided any effective support to them as Special Guardians since 2014.
9. Mr X and Mrs Y wanted as an outcome for the Council to repay them for expenses incurred when the first grandchild stayed with them, a support plan and financial compensation for emotional trauma. And the Council to provide them with funding to buy a house suitable for the number of family members living with them.
10. The Council considered Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaints through the Children Act Statutory complaints procedure. The Council appointed an Independent Officer (IO) to consider the complaints at Stage two of the procedure in May 2018. And an Independent person (IP) to ensure the investigation was carried out properly.
11. Mr X and Mrs Y also complained the Council failed to follow the statutory complaints procedure. This was because of delay in dealing with the complaint in 2017 at stage one and progressing it to stage two in 2018.
12. The IO and IP met with Mr X to discuss the complaints in 2018. They also met with officers involved with the matter and considered relevant documents. The IO partly upheld several of Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaints. This included the Council’s failure to reimburse their costs from when they first cared for a grandchild in 2011, the Council did not effectively manage the transition process after the SGO and failed to provide effective support to them as Special Guardians. The IO also partly found the Council failed to effectively follow the statutory complaints procedure.
13. The IO did not uphold Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaints about being wrongly advised or discourage from having legal representation in court, not actioning the contact order, failing to assess the living space at the family home or failing to take any action. The IO did not make a finding about Mr X and Mrs Y’s concerns they were coerced into an SGO. The IO did not find any fault with the Council’s actions, but accepted Mr X and Mrs Y’s assertion was subjective and their personal view.
14. The IO noted the continuing support given to Mr X and Mrs Y and commented it was above that normally provided to Special Guardians. This was especially because the SGO means minimal involvement from a Council as the SG’s have parental responsibility. The IO recommended the Council provide a policy on what Special Guardian support is available after an SGO is granted and outlined the transitional arrangements. The IO said the Council should review the financial redress being sought and review the needs of the grandchildren to ensure their overall needs were being met in the family home. The IP agreed with the outcome of the IO investigation.
15. The Council considered the IO’s report and IP’s comments in September 2018. It apologised for the delay in considering the complaints. It noted the upheld complaint about the failure to pay an allowance from when Mr X and Mrs Y first cared for a grandchild in 2011. The Council noted the IO and IP partly upheld the complaint about the Council’s management of the transition process after the SGO. The Council said after reviewing the information and good social work practice it found the Council did not manage it effectively so upheld this part of the complaint.
16. The Council agreed it had failed to follow the statutory complaints procedure due to delays in progressing the complaint. The Council agreed with the outcome of the rest of the IO and IP’s findings. It agreed to pay Mr X and Mrs Y expenses of £4974.48 being the foster carer rate for caring for the first grandchild in 2011. It proposed a payment of £25,000 for the complaints partly upheld and the Council’s decision to uphold the complaint about the transition process. The Council said the proposed amount included fostering allowances for two years after the SGO was granted. (The Special Guardianship Regulations 2005 allow a Council to pay a foster carers remuneration to them for two years after the date of the SGO). And compensation for stress and emotional upset caused.
17. The Council noted Mr and Mrs Y’s concerns about the living space at the family home. It agreed to ask an independent social worker to carry out a review of the current SGO and as part of the re-assessment to look again at the issue of space at the family home.
18. The Council noted the recommendations to change or provide Council policies on SGO’s and support available. And confirmed the policies and procedures were now in place.
19. Mr X and Mrs Y remained unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked to go to a Review Panel hearing (Panel) at Stage three of the complaint procedure. The Panel met in January 2019 and considered an opening statement from Mr X and Mrs Y about their desired outcomes from the Stage three hearing. The Panel considered the outcome of the Stage two investigation and Mr X and Mrs Y’s desired outcomes. The Panel agreed with the outcomes of the stage two investigation. And recommended the Council show what action it would take on Mr X and Mrs Y’s desired outcomes.
20. The Council considered the outcome of the Panel hearing and wrote to Mr X and Mrs Y in February 2019. The Council advised it would start the assessment process to look at the support plan. This would include the capacity issues at the property. The Council referred to the payments offered to them for the fostering allowance from 2011 and compensation of £25,000.
21. Mr X and Mrs Y remain unhappy with the outcome of the complaint procedure. They say the independent assessment has been carried out. But the Council has not prepared a support plan or taken the matter to the Finance Panel. So, Mr X and Mrs Y believe the Council is not committed to resolving matters and the level of compensation offer fails to reflect the continuing impact on to them.
22. The Council says an independent social worker carried out an up-to-date assessment in January 2019 which identified support needs for the family. This recommended a formal support plan be written once the Finance Panel considered the matter and concluding the stage three complaint. The Council says the assessment considered all aspects of Special Guardianship and Mr X and Mrs Y received a copy.
23. The Council confirmed the Finance Panel has considered the matter and the Council is currently waiting for Mr X and Mrs Y to provide further details. The Council says Mr X and Mrs Y are aware of the information they need to provide. In commenting on the draft decision Mrs X and Mr Y dispute the Council advised them of the outcome of the Finance Panel and that they were asked to provide information. However, to progress matters the Council has been in contact with Mrs X and Mr Y and arranged for an officer to speak to them to discuss the information needed.

My assessment

24. Mr X and Mrs Y first complained to the Council in 2017 and the complaints procedure ended in 2019. I acknowledged it took the Council some time to complete the complaints procedure. The Stage two investigation refers to the Council’s delay in progressing the complaint to Stage two. But although the complaints procedure ended in 2019 the substantive matters Mr X and Mrs Y refer to took place in 2011 and 2014. And so, I do not consider the Ombudsman can investigate and make a safe finding on the matters now. It was open to Mr X and Mrs Y to complain to the Ombudsman at the time if they had concerns about the way the Council was dealing with the SGO procedure.
25. The Stage 2 investigation report is detailed and thorough and shows a good understanding of Mr X and Mrs Y’s situation. The Stage three Review Panel hearing is also thorough. There is no evidence to show the investigations were flawed so no grounds for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the issues. In addition, I do not consider the Ombudsman can add to the Stage two and Stage three investigations and achieve a different outcome now for Mr X and Mrs Y.
26. Mr X and Mrs Y consider the Council’s financial payment offer inadequate and does not address the impact of the issues on them. However, I am satisfied the Council’s offer of £4974.48 for expenses is reasonable due to the findings of the Stage two investigation report. The Council has explained how it has calculated its offer of £25,000 and this includes a payment of two years foster carers remuneration allowed under the regulations. I consider the Council’s offer is a suitable and substantial remedy for any injustice caused to Mr X and Mrs Y for the situation they have described. And so, I do not consider there are grounds for the Ombudsman to carry out any further investigation now.
27. Mr X and Mrs Y remain unhappy with the way the Council is progressing matters after the Stage three hearing. But the Council has provided evidence to show it has been dealing with the recommendations of the Stage two and three investigations. And it is progressing matters. So, I consider any complaints Mr X and Mrs Y may have about the current situation are premature as the matter is ongoing. Mr X and Mrs Y need to allow the Council to finish the support plan and Finance Panel procedure. Once it is completed and if Mr X and Mrs Y remain unhappy with the outcome it is open to them to complain to the Council again. And then to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I am completing my investigation. There is no fault by the Council in the way it has carried out an independent investigation into Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaints about lack of support them as Special Guardians.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman