Summary: Ms X complained about failings in the support the Council provided to her and her grandchildren. The Council’s failure to provide an Independent Social Worker to support Ms X and the delays in applying for funding for therapies for her grandson are fault. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X complained the Council:
• Failed to provide an independent social worker to support her in caring for her grandchildren;
• Missed opportunities to apply to the adoption support fund (ASF) for assessment and therapeutic services for her grandson; and
• Unreasonably withheld travel expenses in relation to her granddaughter’s therapy.

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’. 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)
3. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X and the Council;
• discussed the issues with Ms X;
• Ms X 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

Special Guardianship

6. Special Guardianship is an order made by the Family Court that places a child or young person to live with someone other than their parent(s) on a long-term basis. The person with whom a child is placed will become the child’s Special Guardian.
7. Councils are required to make a range of support services available to meet the needs of people affected by special guardianship.
8. The council where the special guardian lives is responsible for undertaking an assessment of need and the provision of any support services in response to that assessment. The only exception to this is where a child is a looked after child before the special guardianship order was made. In this case the council where the child was last looked after remains responsible for the assessment and provision of services for the first three years from the date of the order.

Children’s social care statutory complaints procedure

9. 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 Independent Investigator 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 panel to be held.
10. The regulations place a duty on the local authority to act promptly to ensure the complaint is dealt with as swiftly as possible. Getting the best from complaints says:
• the complaint should take a maximum of 20 working days at stage 1;
• the stage 2 investigation should take a maximum of 65 working days, and
• a maximum of 30 working days may be taken to convene and hold a stage 3 Review Panel.
11. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened here

12. Ms X’s grandchildren, Y and Z were placed with her as a temporary foster carer in September 2018. In December 2018 the court approved Ms X as the children’s special guardian. Ms X does not live in the Council’s area.
13. Ms X has previously complained about the support the Council provided and changes to her special guardianship allowance. In December 2020 the Council’s stage two investigation made a number of recommendations, including:
• The Council consider employing an independent social worker (ISW) in Ms X’s home area to offer advice and support for the period the Council retained responsibility for support for Ms X and the children.
• The Council should commit to ensuring that, if necessary, it applies to the ASF for funding for therapeutic support for X without delay.
14. The Council offered to discuss the recommendations with Ms X to confirm her views on what additional support may be needed.
15. In February 2021 the Council agreed to a time-limited contract for an ISW to work with Ms X and the children to support her. The Council asked Ms X’s home authority for a list of approved ISWs. The authority confirmed it did not keep a list of ISW.
16. At around the same time, Ms X contacted the Council to request that any further discussions be through email as she had no faith in social services. There is no evidence the Council took any further action to source an ISW to support Ms X at this stage.
17. In May 2021 Ms X made a formal complaint about the lack of support. Ms X also complained the Council had not funded the cost of Y’s transport to weekly therapy, or made an application for funding for therapy for Z.
18. The Council responded in June 2021 and apologised for the delay. It said it had contacted Ms X’s home authority who confirmed Ms X could join their virtual coffee mornings and access a variety of workshops and trainings. The Council said Ms X’s home authority did not feel Ms X needed an ISW as it could offer the support she needed.
19. It stated the Council could only offer special guardianship support where the special guardian wanted the support and engaged with the Council. It considered Ms X’s request for further discussions to be by email to be a clear indication she did not want support from the Council.
20. The Council stated the application for funding for Y’s therapy did not include the cost of transport, and it had no record of Ms X requesting this.
21. In relation to an application for funding for therapy of Z the Council noted Z was young for a referral for therapeutic work. Ms X would need to agree to and assessment of need to consider in a referral to the ASF was appropriate.
22. Ms X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further.
23. In July 2021 the Council sourced an ISW to carry out an assessment of need for Z. One of the recommendations from this assessment was for the Council to identify an ISW to work with the family for at least three months to help Ms X access support services.
24. There was a delay in appointing a stage two investigator and in agreeing the specific wording of Ms X’s complaint. Having agreed the heads of complaint the Council agreed to take urgent steps to identify and appoint and IWS to provide support and assist during the transition to Ms X’s home authority and for a minimum of six months after the transition.
25. The stage 2 complaint investigation concluded in late December 2021. This upheld Ms X’s complaint that the Council had failed to provide an ISW to support her as previously agreed.
26. It also partially upheld her complaint that the Council had missed opportunities to apply to the ASF for assessment and therapeutic services for Z. The investigating officer noted the Council was endeavouring to commission a therapist to undertake this work so that it had details of the costs to submit an application for funding. However, they considered the Council should have been more proactive in considering Z’s therapeutic needs.
27. The investigation did not uphold Ms X’s complaint regarding the travel expenses for Y’s therapy. The Council had accepted it was an oversight not to apply for the travel expenses alongside the costs for therapy. It had included these in the subsequent application to the ASF. The Council had now reimbursed Ms X for the first sessions of therapy at its mileage rate, which was higher than the ASF rate.
28. The Council considered the investigating officer’s report and wrote to Ms X in February 2022. The Council confirmed it agreed with report findings. However it noted a handover meeting with Ms X’s home authority had taken place in December 2021. This authority had agreed to assume the every-day management of the case. The Council therefore considered a ISW to support the transition was no longer required.
29. In addition the Council confirmed it had submitted an application to the ASF for Y and Z in December 2021. This application was returned and the Council resubmitted an application just for Z in January 2022. The ASF awarded funding in February 2022, and the grant would end on 31 March 2022. At which stage Ms X’s home authority would be responsible for making the new application.
30. The Council also confirmed it would pay mileage for Y’s future therapy sessions at the ASF rate.
31. As Ms X remained unhappy she asked for her complaint to be considered by the stage three panel. The panel hearing was due to take place in May 2022 but was postponed as Ms X was unwell and rearranged for July 2002.
32. The panel agreed with the stage two investigating officer’s findings in relation to each of Ms X’s complaints. It also noted Ms X’s home authority was now responsible for support arrangements for Ms X and the children and had made a further application to the ASF.
33. The panel recommended:
• Ms X and her home authority consider whether to carry out a review to determine whether any additional methods of support may be appropriate, including the appointment of an ISW;
• The Council should ensure in its review of its guidance for SGOs that applicants are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities and the parameters of support and finances that are available; and
• The Council should review its communication with service users to ensure clarity in managing their expectations through providing clear explanations as to respective roles and responsibilities of the professional they are working with.
34. Ms X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She does not consider it acceptable for the Council to delay and fail to support her and her grandchildren and then pass all responsibility to her home authority. Ms X asserts the Council failed her and the children and caused them unnecessary distress and prolonged trauma.

Analysis

35. Aside from the delays in the process, about which Ms X has pursued a separate complaint, I am satisfied there has been a detailed investigation into Ms X’s complaints. The stage 2 investigation report is detailed and thorough and shows the investigating officer took account of all the relevant evidence and addressed each of Ms X’s concerns.
36. The statutory complaint process upheld Ms X’s complaint that the Council had failed to provide an ISW to support Ms X and the children, having previously agreed to do this. And while it did not consider the Council had missed opportunities to apply to the ASF for funding for therapies for Z, it determined the Council could have been more proactive in considering Z’s therapeutic needs.
37. As there is no evidence to suggest the investigation was flawed, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate Ms X’s concerns. I am however mindful that having identified fault, the complaint process does not addressed the impact of these failings on Ms X, Y and Z.
38. I consider Ms X experienced significant injustice as a result of the Council’s failings. The Council committed to providing support in early 2021, but this was still not in place almost a year later when responsibility for providing support services passed from the Council to Ms X’s home authority. The failure to provide an ISW to support Ms X caused her difficulties and distress in looking after her grandchildren and managing their behaviour. This was exacerbated by the delays in applying for funding for therapies for Z.
39. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. Where this is not possible we usually recommend a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault.
40. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. But in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged we may recommend a payment of up to £1000.
41. In this case, I consider a payment of £500 is appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £500 in recognition of the difficulties and distress the failure to provide an ISW and the delays in applying for funding for therapies for Z have caused her.
43. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council’s failure to provide and ISW to support Ms X and the delays in applying for funding for therapies for her grandson are fault. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman