Summary: Ms Y complains about her experiences following her admission to hospital and the removal of her children by the Council. The Council has not yet properly considered Ms Y’s complaint about children’s services. We have discontinued our investigation to avoid prejudicing ongoing court proceedings which will consider some of the matters raised in this complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the actions by Leeds City Council (the Council) after she was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act in February 2022. She considers the Council failed to safeguard her children while she was in hospital. Her concerns include that:
• her child was placed with strangers with links to grooming gangs;
• the Council would not accept the family had links to grooming gangs;
• the Council did not ensure her child had enough clothes when they were placed with another family;
• the Council allowed her other child to miss school while she was in hospital;
• the Council did not act when she raised concerns about grooming gangs.
2. Ms Y says this was “a nightmare” for her and her children. She considers the Council’s actions put her children at risk of abuse and they missed out on several days of education. She says her parental authority has been damaged and her family are vulnerable to the grooming gang who she believes are behind the false allegations about her mental health.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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 contacted the Council for clarification on how it handled Ms Y’s complaint. I also considered the complaint correspondence and its response to my first draft decision statement.
7. I contacted Ms Y to discuss my intention to write a draft decision.
8. I put my provisional findings in a draft decision and invited comments from the Council and Ms Y which I considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

9. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. 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 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. The Ombudsman normally expects a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.
13. The guidance lists who may complain using the statutory procedure. The council does not need consent from the child or young person to investigate a complaint from a person on this list. However, it may need consent from the child or young person to disclose information about them to the person making a complaint.
14. Regulation 8 provides the local authority with discretion in deciding whether to consider complaints where doing so would prejudice any of the following concurrent investigations:
• Court proceedings;
• Tribunals;
• Disciplinary proceedings; or
• Criminal proceedings.
15. The guidance says, “If the local authority decides not to consider or further consider complaints subject to these concurrent investigations, they must write to the complainant explaining the reason for their decision and specifying the relevant concurrent investigation (regulation 8(3))”
16. The Ombudsman published a focus report in 2015 highlighting common failings in the way councils deal with complaints that are within the remit of the children’s statutory procedure. In 2021 we issued further guidance for practitioners setting out our expectations on how statutory complaints should be handled and managed.

What happened

17. Ms Y complained to the Council about her experiences following a detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act. I will not revisit the entire complaint here.
18. In summary, Ms Y complained about two key issues: wrongful detention in hospital and the placement of her children with inappropriate carers. Ms Y also complains about other matters such as the exposure of her children to distressing situations, failure to ensure they received education and a failure to safeguard them from grooming.
19. The Council provided a final response to Ms Y’s complaint in June 2022 under its corporate complaints procedure. The opening of the letter explained:

“As your complaint is directed to several different departments, this is considered a mixed service response. I will only address issues that I feel able to respond to and relate to LCC [Leeds City Council] Adult Social Care, Mental Health Services, however, there may well be some cross over. As such I am inserting any other service’s responses into my reply”

20. Although the body of the letter makes some reference to the actions of children’s services, the opening of the letter is clear that the complaint response is delivered from the perspective of Adult Social Care.
21. Ms Y complained to the LGSCO because she remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Ms Y?

22. We will not investigate Ms Y’s substantive complaint because the Council has not yet addressed Ms Y’s concerns about children’s services using the statutory procedure. Although there are several service areas involved in the matters complained about, the Council does not have discretion to opt not to use the statutory procedure, provided the complaint meets the criteria. Based on the information we have seen, some of Ms Y’s concerns meet the criteria and fall within the scope of the statutory procedure.
23. In response to our initial enquiries, the Council explained its view that discretion exists to consider statutory matters under the corporate procedure if there is an overlap between service areas. Our practitioner guidance says that councils can elect to use one procedure in cases of overlap, only if it ensures the best outcome for the complainant and creates no disadvantage. In such cases we have previously said that councils should consider all matters – including those falling under the corporate procedure – within the statutory scheme. In most cases it would not be suitable for councils to use the corporate scheme for statutory matters because the procedures are not comparable in terms of thoroughness and independence and does not ensure the best outcome.
24. In some cases, we may not ask councils to investigate under the statutory process if the corporate process has produced a thorough and well-evidenced outcome and there is no potential for an independent investigation to reach a different outcome. Although taking this approach is fault, we may decide there is nothing worthwhile to achieve by recommending a statutory investigation; for example, if an investigation under the corporate process has already upheld all elements of the complaint and provided an appropriate remedy.
25. In this case, I issued a draft decision which said there is potential for an independent investigation under the statutory scheme to reach a different outcome. This is because Ms Y’s complaint was not fully upheld, and we were not satisfied the complaint investigator considered all relevant evidence from the perspective of children’s services.
26. In response to my first draft decision the Council explained that, due to concurrent court proceedings, it has now exercised its discretion not to investigate Ms Y’s complaint. This is because the Council says Ms Y’s complaints relate predominantly to the Council’s response to her concerns about grooming and the impact on her family. The Council has explained its view that there is an overlap between Ms Y’s complaint and the care proceedings commenced in respect of Ms Y’s children because the court will consider issues around emotional harm and Ms Y’s parenting capacity.
27. Although Ms Y’s complaint is normally one which should be considered through the statutory procedure, the Council is entitled not to investigate Ms Y’s complaint at this time for the reasons explained above. The LGSCO proposes not to investigate the substantive complaint at this time either because the Council has not yet investigated the complaint under the statutory procedure. In addition, any investigation by the LGSCO at this stage could interfere with ongoing court proceedings.
28. The Council has invited Ms Y to resubmit her complaint, and any new matters, within one year of the conclusion of the current proceedings. The LGSCO welcomes this proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have discontinued our investigation because it is not appropriate for the Council or the LGCSO to investigate matters which overlap with a concurrent court case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman