Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council worked with her when, and after, she was subject to an Interim Care Order. The Council was at fault as it did not properly involve Miss X in care planning. It then delayed accepting she was a care leaver and it failed to escalate her complaint properly through the statutory children’s complaint procedures. However, these faults did not cause Miss X a significant injustice. The Council has apologised, arranged support and addressed faults with its officers.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained via her advocate about how the Council worked with her when, and after, she was subject to an Interim Care Order. She complained:
• the Council did not properly involve her in care planning.
• the approach of a Family Support Worker was not appropriate.
• the Council refused to provide her with the support she was entitled to as a care leaver.
2. Miss X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. She said its actions left her angry, upset and confused, and she did not feel supported.

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. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. For this investigation, I:
• considered the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her advocate;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided;
• looked at the relevant law and guidance, including the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000; and
• wrote to Miss X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their responses.
7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

8. Courts can grant Interim Care Orders (ICOs) to councils during court proceedings, when it is felt to be necessary for the council to look after a child until a final decision is made about the child’s future. ICOs allow councils to share parental responsibility with the child’s parents.
9. Before and during a local authority’s care of a child, it must, as far as reasonably practicable, obtain the wishes and feelings of the child and their parents.
10. Looked After Child (LAC) reviews involve looking at the child’s care plan, considering their progress and deciding any necessary changes.
11. Every looked after child must have an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). This is a qualified and experienced social worker whose role is to oversee how well the local authority does its job as a corporate parent. The IRO is there to ensure the authority is meeting the child’s needs and the child’s voice is being heard.

Children leaving care

12. As the child approaches adulthood there should also be a pathway plan to prepare a move to independence. The council’s duty to the young person does not end at 18, with ongoing statutory duties continuing after they leave care.
13. “Former relevant children” (or “former relevant care leavers”) are defined as:
• being aged 18 to 25;
• having been in care for at least 13 weeks since their 14th birthday; and
• having stayed in care until they were 18 or left care on or after their 16th birthday.
14. Former relevant children are entitled to several things, including a personal adviser (PA), a pathway plan with regular reviews and assistance and bursaries for education.

Statutory children’s complaints procedures

15. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children's social care services. The procedures are statutory, which means councils must follow them unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a variation.
16. Where the Council does not resolve the matter locally at stage one, the complainant has the right to request consideration of the complaint at stage two. Councils are under a duty to deal with complaints without delay.
17. At stage two of the procedures, 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 two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by a panel.

What happened

Care proceedings

18. Miss X lives with her mother. She is one of several siblings. The Council began care proceedings in 2017 due to concerns about the family. In July 2017, the Council discussed how to hold meetings about the family in a way that would protect confidentiality for each child and young person. It decided to allocate different time slots to hold meetings for each child, discussing Miss X and another sibling together in one time slot. It did not discuss whether it would be appropriate to invite Miss X to meetings.
19. The court granted an ICO for Miss X in July 2017, when she was 17 years old. An officer visited Miss X the next day. Miss X was upset about the Council’s plans for her siblings and said she would not go into foster care. Miss X told the Council she did not want to see its social worker. An officer suggested Miss X write down her views to share with the social work team before the next LAC review meeting.
20. The Council completed a young person’s plan for Miss X. This stated that her views about the future were important and the social worker needed to regularly seek her wishes and feelings. Miss X did not agree she needed a plan.
21. The Council held a LAC review meeting at the end of July. The Council recorded it did not consult Miss X before this meeting because she did not want to attend it, and that she was reluctant to share information with the Council about her home life. However, it also recorded she had sent her views before the meeting. It did not state what Miss X’s views were and the Council has no record of receiving Miss X’s views in writing following the officer’s visit.
22. In August, the Council’s social worker visited Miss X to introduce themselves. They recorded they talked to Miss X briefly about the court process and her wishes and feelings. They did not record what Miss X’s wishes and feelings were. The Council completed a care plan for Miss X at the end of August. This did not explain how the Council involved Miss X in decision-making, despite the form prompting workers to record this.
23. At the end of September, the Council’s family support worker visited Miss X to introduce themselves. The worker visited Miss X twice more in October, and recorded Miss X was benefitting significantly from the support. Miss X told the worker it was good having someone to talk to. The worker asked Miss X for her wishes and feelings, and she told them she wanted the family to all be together.
24. A second LAC review was due by the end of October. The IRO prompted the social work team to hold this urgently, which they did at the beginning of November. The Council recorded Miss X did not attend, but it did not record whether it had invited her or not. The form asked the worker to record why Miss X had not attended, and they left this section blank. The Council recorded it did not consult Miss X before the meeting as she was not available. It recorded that she was competent to make her own decisions.
25. At a care planning meeting, also at the beginning of November, the Council discussed Miss X did not wish to be subject to any court order and was rejecting support from the Council. Attendees discussed that Miss X wanted to stay living at her mother’s house and the Council would follow her wishes. It decided a care order was not needed for Miss X.
26. The social worker tried to visit Miss X the following day but Miss X did not attend and they could not contact her by telephone. On another later attempt, the social worker successfully gathered Miss X’s views. Miss X expressed, for example, that she missed her youngest two siblings, she liked her mother’s partner and she would not want to live with strangers. She told the worker she wanted her siblings to come home and she wanted to see them more regularly.
27. The family support worker had an appointment booked with Miss X at the beginning of December 2017. Miss X did not attend and did not answer her telephone when they tried to call her. A few days later the Council recorded
    Miss X and her friend tried to disrupt a statutory visit. Later in December, the Council recorded again Miss X was not cooperating and the social worker could not complete a personal education plan with her. In January 2018, the Council’s leaving care worker carried out a statutory visit and recorded Miss X refused to engage in discussions. She “considered herself to be old enough and responsible enough not to need this service”. The Council recorded Miss X became angry with children’s social care and would not engage.
28. The care proceedings ended in March 2018 with no order for Miss X because of her age. The Council recorded she wished to have no further contact with social care. The social worker contacted Miss X via her advocate, and said Miss X was not a care leaver, she was not classed as an eligible or relevant child, and was not entitled to a PA. The Council says it based this on court advice.

Miss X’s complaint

29. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2018. She said it did not issue a care plan and it did not hold any care planning meetings. Miss X said the family support worker was unhelpful as they offloaded their problems onto her. She said this was overwhelming and she felt unsupported. She said as she was subject to an ICO for six months she was entitled to support as a care leaver.
30. The Council replied to Miss X’s complaint at stage one at the beginning of May 2018. It said:
• it did hold care planning meetings and create a care plan. The meetings included information about Miss X’s siblings which Miss X would not be entitled to. However, the Council should have involved her more.
• the family support worker shared some personal information to form a relationship but denied they had ‘offloaded’.
• the judge had said Miss X did not meet the criteria of care leaver because she continued to live with her mother while subject to a care order. The Council now accepted Miss X was a relevant care leaver and would allocate a PA.
31. Miss X replied asking the Council to escalate to stage two. She said:
• there was no reason for the Council not to invite her to meetings or involve her. Miss X had not met the IRO and she had received no meeting minutes.
• regardless of whether the family support worker felt they were offloading, what was important was how this approach made Miss X feel.
• she was still waiting for a PA to be allocated.
32. The Council wrote to Miss X again at the end of June. It said it would not escalate her complaint to stage two. It said it was satisfied with its stance for the parts of her complaint it had not upheld. It said Miss X had raised a new issue when she said the Council should have engaged her more, and it had not addressed her point about how the family support worker’s approach made her feel. The Council explained it would treat this as a new stage one complaint. It said it would reply about allocating a PA when it sent its further stage one response.
33. The Council sent its further stage one response in July 2018. It said:
• Miss X made important points the Council could learn from. It recognised the importance of engaging young people in planning. It would improve its service by sharing this learning and discussing this in supervisions.
• it should have involved Miss X more. It missed opportunities to gather her views. The Council could not see any invitations or encouragement for her to attend the meetings. It apologised.
• records did not show reflection by the family support worker on Miss X’s engagement and the impact of their approach. It apologised Miss X did not feel the worker’s approach of sharing some personal information was helpful. It agreed the worker’s engagement style had not worked with Miss X.
• it would appoint a PA by the end of July.
34. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She was more satisfied with the Council’s second response, but was concerned it had carried out a new stage one investigation rather than escalating the complaint.
35. The Council allocated a PA. They arranged a visit to Miss X in July, but Miss X was not at home. The PA tried to contact Miss X by telephone in August and September 2018 but could not contact her. They visited in September unannounced and met with Miss X.
36. I asked the Council if it had considered sharing meeting minutes with Miss X, as she highlighted in her letter of May 2018 it had not done so. The Council told me it arranged a meeting with Miss X in February 2019 to share the relevant information with her. The Council told Miss X it accepted its practice could have been better and asked her what it could buy for her when she moves into new accommodation. Miss X said there was nothing she needed.
37. I asked the Council for more detail about the service improvements it had made. It told me it sought to ensure care planning with young people included them more. It said it had also taken steps to record meetings in a way that meant minutes were easily separated, covering each child or young person individually so they could be shared more effectively.
38. I asked the Council for information about when it started paying Miss X incentive payments which she was entitled to as a care leaver. The Council explained it has paid Miss X incentive payments since September 2018.

Analysis

Miss X’s complaint the Council did not involve her

39. Miss X complained to the Council originally that it did not hold care planning meetings or produce a care plan. The Council’s response to this clarified it did hold meetings and produce a plan. Miss X realised, due to this, the Council had not invited her to meetings or shared the plan with her.
40. The Council discussed how to hold meetings about several siblings in a way that would protect the confidentiality of all siblings. This was appropriate. However, as Miss X was 17 and competent, the Council should have considered inviting her, holding a time slot specifically for Miss X, and asking her to leave when they needed to discuss other siblings. The Council did not consider inviting Miss X, even where its templates prompted it to consider her attending. This is fault.
41. The Council recorded confusing information in the LAC review of July 2017, about whether it had sought Miss X’s views. It recorded she had sent her views in writing but this was not the case. An officer gathered some limited information about her views in July. Miss X had told the Council she did not wish to meet the social worker, and the Council invited her to provide her views in writing before this meeting. The Council therefore gave Miss X some opportunity to have her views heard at the meeting in July 2017.
42. The Council recorded it sought Miss X’s views in August 2017, but did not record what these were. The Social Worker’s record of the visit in November 2017 detailed Miss X’s views so the Council could properly consider them in proceedings. There was a delay of four months, until November 2017, in the Council fully gathering Miss X’s views and this is fault. In addition, the IRO’s duties involve ensuring the young person’s views are being heard. The IRO did not question the social workers about Miss X not being invited or sufficiently involved. This was fault.
43. The Council did not share relevant information with Miss X until February 2019. This is fault. While the Council could not share all information with Miss X, due to its responsibility to protect others’ confidentiality, it should have shared the information it could with Miss X during the care planning process.
44. The Council considered Miss X’s views in its decision-making and I cannot say the outcome would have been different had it properly involved her earlier. Miss X did not always engage with the Council’s attempts to gather her views. On the balance of probabilities, had the Council acted without fault Miss X would not have taken further opportunities to be involved in the process. Therefore, these faults did not cause Miss X a significant injustice.
45. The Council has apologised to Miss X for not fully involving her, and it has taken steps to address these points with its officers so the same faults are not repeated in the future. This is appropriate.

Miss X’s complaint about the family support worker’s approach

46. There is no evidence to suggest Miss X was unhappy with the family support worker’s approach until she complained. The worker’s notes suggest Miss X appreciated the support. The worker accepted they had shared some personal information with Miss X, but denied they shared too much.
47. The Council suggested in its second complaint response the worker could have reflected more on their sessions with Miss X. However, there is no substantive evidence the worker’s approach was not suitable. The Council acknowledged how Miss X felt about the worker’s approach. It was not at fault, but apologised.

Miss X’s complaint about lack of support as a care leaver

48. Care proceedings finished in March 2018. The Council says the court advised
    Miss X did not have care leaver status. The law makes clear a young person is an eligible care leaver if they have been in care for 13 weeks after the age of 14, with at least one day in care after 16. Miss X was subject to an ICO for eight months, with this whole period being while she was 17 years old. The Council was at fault for not identifying Miss X as a care leaver in March 2018. It later accepted, in May 2018, Miss X was an eligible care leaver.
49. There was then a delay in Miss X receiving the services she was entitled to as a care leaver. The Council did not arrange a PA for Miss X until July 2018. This is fault. However, between July and September 2018, Miss X did not engage with this support. The delay from July onwards was not due to fault by the Council. Miss X began engaging with the support in September 2018. On the balance of probabilities, Miss X would have engaged four months earlier had the Council acted without fault. However, due to the Council having now arranged the support, and Miss X’s contribution to the delay, fault by the Council did not cause a significant injustice to Miss X.
50. This delay may, however, have had financial implications for Miss X, who is entitled to financial support as a care leaver. Miss X did not have full attendance in education for the 2017/18 academic year so she may not have been entitled to incentive payments in any event. However, due to the delay in the Council accepting Miss X’s care leaver status, it has asked Miss X’s educational setting to review its records. The Council says it will refund incentive payments where these would have been due, had it accepted Miss X had care leaver status earlier. This is appropriate and I will not investigate this further, because doing so will not lead to a different outcome.

Complaint handling

51. The Council did not escalate Miss X’s complaint to stage two when it should have. It instead investigated again at stage one. Miss X did not raise substantially new issues in her further complaint letters. It was originally the Council in its response of May, and not Miss X, that raised that issue she should have been more involved. Miss X responded to this by explaining she had not received any minutes from those meetings the Council said it had held. Miss X had already raised the issue of how the family support worker’s approach made her feel. The Council did not uphold some parts of Miss X’s complaint, so in any event it should have escalated her complaint to further consider those issues.
52. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Council refusing to consider Miss X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory procedures. The Council was at fault. However, its second stage one response upheld further elements of Miss X’s complaint.
53. The Council missed the opportunity to resolve Miss X’s complaint fully, through the proper procedures, without the need for her to refer it to the Ombudsman. However, we agreed to consider Miss X’s complaint and this fault did not lead to significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have found fault by the Council, but this did not cause a significant injustice to Miss X. The Council has already taken steps to ensure it does not repeat the same faults. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman