Summary: there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of this complaint to justify the Ombudsman pursuing this complaint further now: the complainant had opportunities to pursue the matter under the final stage of the statutory complaints procedure but did not do so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, says the Council has delayed and failed to properly consider the complaint she originally submitted about its children’s services team since 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 discussed the complaint with Ms B and considered the written information she provided with her complaint. I asked Ms B to let me have additional information in the form of copies of her correspondence with the Council to request a review panel following the stage 2 adjudication in February 2020. In response Ms B provided a copy of an email she had sent to the Council the day after the adjudication letter was sent. I have carefully considered this also.
7. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying Regulations and statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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 investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
11. 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 relevant Regulations state the complainant must make a request for a review panel within 20 working days of the stage 2 response and that they must set out their reasons for their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation. If a request is made the council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
12. Councils can refuse to consider a complaint if a complainant says they intend to take legal action or if investigating a complaint could prejudice concurrent court proceedings. However, after the proceedings have ended, a complainant can resubmit the complaint for the council to consider.

What happened

13. Ms B first complained in October 2018. The Council told her that as the issues she had raised in the complaint were connected to matters included in ongoing legal proceedings it would not consider the complaint at that time but that she could submit her complaint after these proceedings had concluded.
14. It appears Ms B did then resubmit her complaint in 2019. The Council then decided to miss out consideration at stage 1 and started the process at stage 2.
15. The Council appointed an investigating officer and an independent person to consider the complaint at stage 2 of the statutory complaints process. They met Ms B in May 2019. They agreed a summary of the complaint with her which they state Ms B agreed to in June 2019. They then investigated the complaint by considering records and interviewing a number of social care staff. The final investigation report was issued in December 2019.
16. The adjudicator at stage 2 issued her adjudication in February 2020. In her adjudication letter the adjudicator told Ms B that f she wanted the matter considered by a review panel at stage 3 of the complaints procedure she should request this within 20 working days.
17. Ms B has provided a copy of an email she sent to the Council dated the day after the adjudication letter was issued indicating she would be asking for a review panel at stage 3. The email states “I’ll be going for stage 3”. My interpretation of that is that she would be confirming and providing further information about that in due course. In her correspondence to me in response to my query as to why she did not ask for a review panel earlier, Ms B has said she was “was under duress from the LA and neighbour disputes”. She says that later the Covid-19 lockdown also delayed her.
18. It does not appear that Ms B actually went on to request a stage 3 review panel until she sent an email to the Council requesting this in late August 2020, some six months later. I have seen that email and do not consider Ms B explained in that email the reasons she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation or the reasons her request was several months late. The Council did however respond in September 2020 stating that the request would be passed on to the complaints team.
19. It then appears that no further action was taken by either Ms B or the Council until mid-October 2021 when the Council contacted Ms B again asking her to provide reasons for requesting a review panel. When it received no response the Council chased Ms B in a further email in late October asking for her response by early November and stating it would not pursue the matter further if it did not hear from her. Ms B responded promptly to say she had had a bereavement and asked for more time to provide a response. The Council asked her on 9 November when she could provide a response. When the PA did not respond the Council emailed her again in mid-November asking her to provide her response by the end of November. When it did not hear from her again the Council emailed her in early December to say she could complain to this office. In her emailed complaint to this office Ms B says that the deadline was the same time as her grandson’s EHC Plan review. She has also told me that she was in court at that time.

Analysis

20. I have decided I should not consider this complaint further. This is because the Council would have been required to consider the matter at a stage 3 review panel if Ms B had submitted a request for this within 20 days of the stage 2 adjudication letter sent to her in February 2020. That letter made this deadline clear. I do not consider Ms B’s email to the Council the day after the adjudication was sent is sufficient to be considered a request for a review panel. It simply started she would be asking for a review panel. It implied she would be sending a request for this subsequently and it is reasonable to assume that with a request she would have provided more information about what she was dissatisfied with.
21. When she wrote in August Ms B provided no reason for her late request. Even so the Council did not refuse to pursue the matter at that time. It did say that a member of Council staff would be in touch with her and that did not happen. The Council did however pursue the matter again in October 2021 at which time it was seemingly willing to arrange a review panel then. It asked Ms B to provide more information about her dissatisfaction with the stage 2 outcome. She did not do this. It provided her with more time after she said she needed this following a bereavement but still did not provide any more information or ask for additional time again. The Council then told her it would not pursue the matter further and said she could contact the Ombudsman. I do not consider there is evidence of fault in this Council’s handling of this to justify us investigating further.
22. I have carefully considered what has happened with Ms B’s complaint and particularly what happened regarding a stage 3 review panel. I am of the view that the Council did enough to enable Ms B to pursue her complaint in February 2020 and again in October 2021. It did not do what it said it would in August 2020 but as it gave her a further opportunity to pursue her complaint in 2021 I do not intend pursuing this further. As Ms B had two opportunities to pursue this matter to the final stage of the statutory complaints procedure I see no reason the Ombudsman should consider the substantive complaint now. This is the case even though Ms B says she had other things that demanded her attention at the time: she could have told the Council this and asked it to take this into account but there is no evidence that she did so.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have discontinued our investigation of this complaint because Ms B had the opportunity to pursue the matter under the statutory complaints procedure but did not do so. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify the Ombudsman pursuing the matter now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman