Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled the cases of her two children who are subject to care orders. The Council was at fault as it took too long to respond to Ms X’s complaint, for which it has already apologised. It delayed taking substantive action when the court ordered it to arrange contact between Ms X and one of her children, causing Ms X stress and frustration. The Council was also at fault as it delayed considering Ms X’s request for family therapy and then did not clearly communicate its decision not to arrange this. This caused confusion for Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £150.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council handled the cases of her two children, Y and Z, both of whom are subject to care orders. She raises several concerns about the social worker. Her concerns include that they refused to assist Ms X in dealing with hate crime by Z’s school, they inappropriately shared details of her personal history with Z, and they bullied and frightened her and laughed at her. She says the Council refused to change workers and ignored numerous complaints she made.
2. Ms X says the complaint investigation was flawed, because it took too long and the independent panel was not independent.
3. Ms X says the Council’s actions led to her losing her employment, her two children and a friend.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated events from February 2018. This is because a previous Ombudsman decision considered events before then. I have investigated events up to December 2018, which is when Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. I have also come to findings on some subsequent issues that were a continuation of, or intrinsically linked to, previous issues.
5. Ms X raised a new issue after she complained to the Ombudsman which was not intrinsically linked to issues already ongoing. I have explained in “The Ombudsman’s role and powers” and “Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate” why I have not investigated that issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. We cannot question whether a council’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)
8. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

9. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the Council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the Council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
10. 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

11. I considered the information Ms X provided;
12. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided;
13. I considered the Ombudsman’s previous decision statement, which covered events before the period I have investigated;
14. I looked at the relevant law and guidance, including the Children Act 1989 and Getting the Best from Complaints 2006;
15. I considered the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies; and
16. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.
17. 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

18. The Ombudsman previously considered a complaint from Ms X about the Council’s involvement with her children, Y and Z. Y spent some time living with foster carers after Ms X had asked Y to leave the family home due to their behaviour. Ms X told the Council she did not want Y to return to live with her, while Y told the Council they wanted to return to live with their mother. The Council was concerned about the impact the lack of contact between Ms X and Y was having on Y’s emotional wellbeing.
19. We later issued a decision covering that time period. We found the Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider its legal options or Y’s views when Y told it they wanted to return to live with Ms X rather than stay in their foster placement. It did not explore other options for Y’s care. It did not give Ms X enough notice for a contact session between her and Y, which she could not attend, then allowed Y to believe Ms X had cancelled the session.
20. The Council accepted our recommendations which included making a symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise her distress and uncertainty, and arranging training for its staff.

What happened

21. In February 2018, the Council considered the family situation. It noted Ms X was not communicating with its officer. It recorded that her changes in mood, which the Council described as “sporadic”, could cause the children significant harm. The Council arranged a child protection conference for the end of February, to decide if Y and Z were at risk of significant harm, and what action should be taken to keep Y and Z safe. It sent an invite to Ms X nearly two weeks in advance. Ms X told the Council this did not give her enough notice.
22. Ms X says the Council posted a report through her letterbox without an envelope in February. It contained sensitive material about Ms X’s history of trauma. Ms X says Z found the document and read it.
23. Ms X attended the child protection conference. The attendees noted she was very open and honest and was able to engage with the Council’s plan for the children. However, they were concerned about her emotional stability and distress. Y wanted to return home but Ms X did not want this, and this was impacting on Y’s emotional wellbeing. Attendees designed a plan for Y’s contact with Ms X to increase again. The Council noted Ms X needed to do some work around understanding her childhood, and how this impacted on the present and her parenting style.
24. Y moved back to the family home at the end of March 2018. However, at the end of April 2018, Ms X and Y had an argument and Y returned to stay with foster carers. Ms X told the Council the return home had happened very quickly.
25. Ms X told the Council at the beginning of May she agreed to Y being in care and wanted no further communication about Y. The Council continued to invite Ms X to meetings and asked for her views. Ms X then withdrew consent for professionals to speak with Z, who was still in her care. Ms X did not believe there was a need for social care to be involved, since Y had left the family home. Ms X refused to speak to Z’s social worker and told the Council she felt harassed. Ms X asked the Council for a new social worker for Z and raised several concerns.
26. The Council held a child protection conference at the end of May, to decide if Z was at risk of significant harm. Ms X did not attend because she felt the whole process was contrived. She did not provide her views about Z to be fed into the meeting but reiterated concerns about the social worker. She did not want to receive any minutes, but the Council sent them to her.
27. Ms X continued to raise concerns about Z’s social worker. She said they failed to act on a disclosure of hate crime at the school after she had told them about it. She said she would never engage with them. Ms X said the Council was perpetuating her distress by bringing up her past trauma, which she did not agree was relevant. She said she objected to the Council’s constant “hounding” of Z.
28. At the beginning of July, Council officers met with Ms X to discuss her concerns and record them as a stage one complaint. Ms X raised concern it had not treated these as a complaint previously.
29. The Council held a review child protection conference for Z in July. Ms X attended and said she felt professionals had lied and were incompetent. She told the Council she would not be in a room with Z’s social worker again. Ms X told the Council Z should move in with their father, but she would need to share concerns about the paternal family with the Council. She later provided these in writing.
30. At the end of July 2018, the Council sent Ms X a complaint response letter. It did not uphold her complaint and she asked it to escalate the complaint. At stage two of the statutory procedure for complaints about children's social care services, the Council appoints an investigating officer and an independent person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation).
31. At the beginning of August 2018, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) responded to the Council after it reported the possible data breach when the report may have been delivered without an envelope. The ICO told the Council it would take no action as it could not find out whether the document had been delivered without an envelope. It gave advice to the Council.
32. The Council obtained an interim care order for Y from the court, which placed Y in the Council’s care and gave the Council parental responsibility for Y. In early September, the court also granted an interim supervision order for Z which dictated where Z would live. Z left Ms X’s care to live with their father. The court made an order relating to contact, but Z told the Council they did not want contact with Ms X. Ms X told the Council she was due to receive therapy through her employer.
33. In September the Council called Ms X to invite her to a meeting about Z which it had arranged at short notice. Ms X said the Council was setting her up to fail by not giving her enough notice. The Council held a review child protection conference for Z at the beginning of October 2018. Ms X did not attend as the social worker would be present. Ms X asked the Council to feed her views into the meeting, which focused on her concerns about the social worker.
34. Ms X and the Council agreed the scope of her stage two complaint at the beginning of October 2018. The Council noted Ms X was very low, as she had lost her children and her job. She told it the social worker’s actions had led to her breaking down at work and she could no longer continue working. The Council continued to invite Ms X to meetings about Z, which Ms X did not attend.
35. Ms X began having telephone contact with Y. She asked for family therapy for her and Y. The Council agreed to explore this. Ms X continued to make numerous complaints about Z’s social worker.
36. The Council assessed Z’s paternal family members. Based on all information it gathered which included Ms X’s concerns, it decided Z could have contact with the paternal family. Ms X was not happy with this.
37. The court granted a care order for Y in mid-November. Y told the Council they wanted to return to live with Ms X. The court left the arrangements for contact between Ms X and Y to the Council’s discretion.
38. At the end of November, the Council told Ms X that Y would have a new social worker from the children in care team. Ms X chased this later in December. She also chased the Council for its stage two complaint investigation report. The Council told her the investigation was still underway and within the normal timescale. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman, but we asked her to wait for the Council’s stage two complaint response.
39. The investigating officer issued their stage two report at the beginning of January 2019. They apologised for the delay in completing their report, which was due to Christmas and new year holidays, and health issues. The report concluded:
• The Council said Z did not request a different social worker. The social worker was appointed to the child, not Ms X. The worker should not be changed.
• The social worker’s supervisor had no concerns about the social worker’s actions, and they had worked in the children’s best interests.
• Ms X’s history was relevant, and the Council needed to explore how this impacted her parenting. It had explained this to Ms X. Ms X’s history was used appropriately. Ms X had received counselling through her employer.
• The school was investigating Ms X’s complaint about hate crime. No action by the Council was needed as the complaints had been dealt with appropriately.
• Ms X was always invited to meetings but did not always want to attend. Ms X refused to be involved with Y and Z’s cases at times.
• The Council completed viability assessments for the paternal family. Ms X’s concerns were all addressed but the outcomes could not be shared with her.
• The investigating officer made no recommendations to the Council.
40. Y’s new social worker contacted Ms X at the beginning of January 2019. Ms X and Y both said they would like Y to return home gradually. Throughout January, Ms X raised concerns about how long they had gone without contact. The Council explained it was trying to minimise the chances of a breakdown in their relationship again. It reminded Ms X she had said the transition back home needed to be gradual. Ms X and Y began having supervised contact at the end of January.
41. in mid-February, the Council sent Ms X the stage two complaint investigation report and its adjudication letter, which discussed the findings further. This letter reflected the stage two investigation’s findings. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of a stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review. Ms X did not want her complaint to be investigated at stage three, and the Ombudsman and the Council agreed a stage three review was not necessary in the circumstances. The Council had had sufficient opportunity to respond to
    Ms X’s complaint and Ms X was distressed by the time the process had so far taken. We agreed to begin investigating.
42. Ms X continued to raise concerns about the timescales for Y’s return home. She asked the Council again about family therapy, and the social worker said they would explore this. The Council discussed this option with a children’s mental health service. Both agreed the family’s priorities were to have support around rules, boundaries and expectations, and agreed family therapy would not be helpful for Y at that time. The Council discussed the family’s priorities with Ms X. However, the notes do not say the Council explained it had decided it would not arrange family therapy. Y returned to live with Ms X in July 2019.

Analysis

43. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, 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. Ms X was concerned the investigation was not independent. I have seen no substantive evidence of this. Neither the investigating officer or the independent person were involved in case management, or line management for the relevant officers. They were involved with Ms X’s previous complaint, but they were independent from the Council’s dealings with this case in the spirit of the guidance.
44. Ms X asked the Council at the end of July 2018 to escalate her complaint to stage two. Councils must act expeditiously through complaints procedures, to deal with complaints as swiftly as possible. When a complaint moves to the stage two investigation process, the council and complainant should agree on the scope of the complaint and record it in writing. The stage two timescale starts from the date the complaint scope is agreed. Where a council cannot complete its investigation within 25 working days, it may extend stage two to a maximum of 65 working days. (Getting the Best from Complaints 2006, sections 3.1.3, 3.6.2 and 3.6.9)
45. The Council visited Ms X in September to discuss the scope of her stage two complaint. She then agreed the statement of her complaint with the Council at the beginning of October. The Council sent its stage two adjudication letter 96 working days later. The Council took too long to deal with Ms X’s complaint and this is fault. The Council has apologised. This is a sufficient remedy for any impact of the delay, which was not significant.
46. Ms X raised a significant number of complaints. She says the Council ignored many of those complaints. I have looked at the Council’s log of complaints from Ms X. It recorded reasoning at times when it did not respond to Ms X’s complaint directly, for example where she repeated previous complaints. The Council passed Ms X’s concerns on to the relevant officers. A named officer acknowledged each concern. Some issues were not addressed by the Council’s investigation, but the Council did not ignore Ms X’s complaints, and it investigated the substantive complaints. Ms X did not indicate before July 2018 that she wished to make a formal complaint, so the Council was not at fault for not treating the concerns as a formal complaint until then.

Issues addressed by the Council’s complaints procedure

47. Ms X says the Council refused to change social workers when she requested this. The stage two investigation report did not uphold this complaint as both children continued to have good relationships with their social workers.
48. The stage two investigation considered the Council’s actions in relation to the concerns Ms X raised about Z’s paternal family. The Council cannot share the detail of the Council’s actions, nor can the stage two investigators and the Ombudsman. However, the stage two investigation report did not uphold Ms X’s complaint as the Council properly considered Ms X’s concerns about Z’s paternal family.
49. Ms X says the Council refused to assist with hate crime she says Z’s school directed at Z. The stage two investigation report did not uphold Ms X’s complaint because she had taken her own action and there was nothing further for the social worker to do.
50. Ms X did not feel her own history of trauma was relevant to her parenting, and said the Council had not explained why it considered this relevant. The stage two investigation report did not uphold Ms X’s complaint, as her history was relevant and used appropriately.
51. I have found no evidence of fault in the stage two investigation in terms of the above issues, and I have no reason to challenge those findings.

Issues not addressed by the Council’s complaints procedure

52. Ms X says the social worker treated her unfairly, threatened her, bullied her and laughed at her. She raised numerous complaints about Z’s social worker during events. The stage two investigation briefly commented on this part of her complaint, saying the social worker’s practice supervisor had no concerns in relation to the social worker’s actions. However, the investigation focused on the remedy Ms X sought of changing the social worker, rather than coming to a finding on whether there was any fault in the Council’s actions. Ms X’s concerns about the social worker’s actions were the basis for her request for a change in worker.
53. Ms X agreed the complaint statement with the Council at stage two, so it is not fault by the Council that the complaint statement lacked reference to this. However as this was not fully addressed, I have come to findings on this part of Ms X’s complaint.
54. I have seen no evidence in written communications of the behaviours Ms X reports the social worker displayed. I cannot know what was said in person as I was not present. The Council’s decisions were based upon the information available to it, and there is no evidence of bias. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.
55. Ms X complained she had not been invited to meetings. The investigation found she was invited to all meetings, but she chose not to attend several. This part of the stage two investigation did not address part of Ms X’s concern, which was the last-minute nature of some invites. Ms X agreed the complaint statement with the Council at stage two, so it is not fault by the Council that the complaint statement lacked reference to this. However, because this part of Ms X’s complaint was not addressed, I have analysed this issue in more detail.
56. Ms X told me she received an invite to one meeting the day after the meeting. The Council sent invites to Ms X in good time and I cannot say why she received this one late. Ms X expressed concern when she was invited less than two weeks before the conference of February 2018. In any event, she attended so this did not cause an injustice. In September 2018, the Council arranged a meeting at the last minute and invited Ms X with short notice. It is not unusual for child protection meetings to be arranged at short notice, because they are often urgent. However in any event, Ms X had expressed she would not attend meetings where Z’s social worker was attending. Therefore, this did not cause Ms X an injustice as on the balance of probabilities, she would not have attended the meeting had she known about it earlier.
57. There was a significant period during which both Ms X and Y told the Council they wanted to have more contact. Ms X raised concerns about this continually. The stage two complaint investigation had already begun before the court ordered the Council to arrange contact in November 2018. It is not therefore fault that the stage two investigation did not include this issue. The Council has had the opportunity to consider this concern. This part of Ms X’s complaint is intrinsically linked to events that were already ongoing, around Y’s living arrangements and contact with Ms X. I have therefore investigated this.
58. It was nearly two months after the court ordered the Council should consider contact arrangements before Y’s new social worker became involved. I have seen no substantive evidence the Council started work around progressing contact arrangements until January 2019, although the Council says the social workers were completing a thorough handover. I have carefully considered this. However I do not accept that a handover, however thorough, should take two months. One of the key principles of the Children Act 1989 is the presumption that there should be continued contact between a child and their family while the child is in the care of a council. This is with the underlying philosophy of working towards reunification where this is possible and consistent with the child’s welfare. This two-month delay between the court order and substantive action amounts to fault and Ms X was caused some stress and frustration. (The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations 2015 – Volume 2: care planning, placement and case review, section 2.78)
59. Once substantive action began in January 2019, the social worker assisted contact to increase gradually and move towards Y returning home, which happened six months later. The social worker reminded Ms X that previously Y’s transition back to live with her had progressed too suddenly and the arrangement had broken down. This gradual move, increasing contact between January and July 2019, was intentional and was not fault. Y is still living with Ms X, suggesting that the gradual transition may have led to a more settled move home this time.
60. Ms X says the Council ignored her requests for family therapies. Ms X accessed some therapy through her employer, however she says she wanted the Council to offer family therapy rather than individual therapy. The evidence I have seen is that Ms X asked for family therapy in October 2018. As this was after the stage two investigation scope was agreed, it is not fault that this was not included in the investigation. This part of Ms X’s complaint is intrinsically linked to her contact with Y, and Y’s living arrangements, therefore I have considered this issue.
61. The Council told Ms X in late 2018 it would look at the option of family therapies, but it did not do so. This is fault. Ms X asked the Council about family therapy again in March 2019, and it properly considered Ms X’s request but decided it should not arrange family therapy. This is a decision it was entitled to make. The Council disagreed with Ms X but that does not, in itself, mean it was at fault. As the Council decided not to arrange family therapy when it properly considered this request, the earlier failure to consider this did not cause a significant injustice.
62. However, I have not seen evidence the Council then clearly communicated its decision to Ms X. The case notes show the Council discussed the family’s priorities with Ms X, but it did not record having told her its decision. This is fault. Ms X was caused confusion as the Council had not responded to her request for what was, in her opinion, something that would benefit her relationship with Y.
63. Ms X had raised her concern with the Council about information being delivered without an envelope. The ICO was already involved by the time the stage two investigation scope was agreed, and so it is not fault that this issue was not included in the stage two investigation. The Council and the ICO could not determine whether information had been delivered to Ms X’s house without an envelope. I could not add to the Council’s and the ICO’s investigation. The ICO gave advice to the Council and was satisfied with the action it took in response. The ICO was the correct organisation to consider this issue and I have stopped investigating this part of Ms X’s complaint.
64. Ms X says the Council’s actions led to her losing her job and meant she may not be able to gain similar work in the future. Ms X told the Council she had left work due to having a breakdown because of events. I cannot say this was because of fault by the Council. Councils will share information where there are implications for safeguarding others. It is then for the police and employers to make decisions based on the information. We cannot investigate actions by Ms X’s previous employer related to her employment, or the Disclosure and Barring Service.
65. Ms X says the Council’s actions led to her losing her children. I cannot say this is the case. Y is now living with Ms X again, and Z is not, but this is not because of fault by the Council. I have seen no evidence Ms X losing a friend was due to any fault by the Council.

Agreed action

66. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X within one month of my final decision and pay her £150. This is to recognise the confusion caused to her when it did not clearly communicate its decision about family therapies, and the stress and frustration caused to her when it delayed taking substantive action after the court ordered it to arrange contact between her and Y.

Back to top

Final decision

67. I found fault causing an injustice to Ms X. The Council has accepted my recommendation and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

68. Ms X brought a new issue to the Ombudsman after her complaint of December 2018, regarding Y’s immunisations. This issue is separable from the other issues I have investigated. We would normally expect someone to be able to show they had exhausted the Council’s own complaint procedures before bringing their complaint to the Ombudsman. We can disapply this requirement in certain circumstances. However, in this case, this is not appropriate and it is reasonable for Ms X to give the Council an opportunity to investigate and reply to that complaint. Ms X should complain to the Council about Y’s immunisations, and it remains open to her to then bring the issues to the Ombudsman if necessary.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman