Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council handled various matters in relation to her grandson who was accommodated by the Council. The Council failed to follow the right process when investigating the concerns about one of the placements and did not investigate the concerns about the second placement, made decisions about contact without involving Ms B when she retained parental responsibility for her grandson, gave Ms B misleading information about the options the Council was considering and when a placement planning meeting would take place, failed to properly document its decision-making, produced inaccurate documents and failed to properly consider her complaint. An apology, payment to Ms B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained the Council:
• failed to consider the suitability of Cameron House for her grandson before it placed him there;
• failed to act on concerns she and others raised about the care provided to her grandson at Cameron House;
• failed to put in place support when she took her grandson back home when the placement broke down in June 2018;
• failed to tell Ms B it had ended the section 20 agreement when she took her grandson back home on a temporary basis;
• misled her about its intentions before it placed her grandson in a new placement in August 2018;
• failed to consider Potton Homes, which was Ms B’s preferred placement for her grandson;
• failed to put in place measures to assess the suitability of Dartford House and instead placed her grandson there on a permanent basis from the outset;
• held a placement planning meeting for Dartford House without her despite the fact she has parental responsibility for her grandson;
• completed an inaccurate care plan in which she was not involved;
• completed an inaccurate report for the September 2018 looked after child review;
• reduced Ms B’s contact with her grandson while he was at Dartford House without consulting her;
• refused to allow Ms B’s grandson have an overnight stay with her despite the fact she has parental responsibility;
• unreasonably required her contact with her grandson in the community to be supervised when he moved to Dartford House when that had not been discussed with her;
• failed to investigate her concerns about the care provided to her grandson at Dartford House;
• wrongly contacted DLA and child benefit to remove her access to benefits for her grandson;
• delayed considering her complaint;
• failed to properly consider her complaint at both stages; and
• refused to take her complaint to stage three, despite originally agreeing to.
2. Ms B says the Council’s actions caused her and her family great distress.

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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Ms B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
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

What should have happened

8. Section 20 of the Education Act 1989 (the Act) says:
• (1)Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of:
• (a)there being no person who has parental responsibility for him;
• (b)his being lost or having been abandoned; or
• (c)the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care.
9. The Act says any person who has parental responsibility for a child may at any time remove the child from accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority under this section.
10. The Council’s placement process (the process) says when it decides a placement may be required and throughout the subsequent process of identification, planning and placement the social worker must consult and take account of the views of various people, including those with parental responsibility for the child.
11. The process says the social worker will complete a placement request form which will provide information about the child, the type of placement sought, the care plan, the date by which the placement is required, the likely length of time for which the placement is required and the expected level of contact between the child and parents.
12. The process says the social worker should visit potential homes and is required to consult with other professionals before making a decision about the appropriateness of the placement. It says the placement provider should be able to provide evidence that supports the appropriateness and effectiveness of any therapeutic approach or model of care they intend to use. Following that, the proposed placement will be presented to the social worker’s manager for approval.
13. The process says a placement planning meeting will be held, usually in the child’s new placement. That will include the parent and the child and anyone else considered appropriate. It says the Council is required to draw up the placement plan before the child is placed or, if not practicable, within five working days from the start of the placement.
14. The Council’s placement process (the process) says a looked after review should be convened where the placement provider, parents or area authority are concerned the child is at risk of harm.
15. The process says the care plan will be discussed at the placement planning meeting. The process says the social worker will complete and arrange for the circulation of the care plan and placement plan to the child, parents and residential staff. The process says the social worker will draw up and update the care plan in consultation with the child, the child’s parents and those with parental responsibility as well as other people.
16. The Council’s procedure (the procedure) for allegations against foster carers is relevant for those providing care in a care home. This says when information is received to suggest a child has suffered or is suffering harm in a foster placement the social worker must inform the team manager, the local authority designated officer (LADO), the supervising social worker and refer the matter to the relevant assessment team. Following that the Council must convene a strategy meeting.
17. The procedure says whether or not the strategy meeting considers the allegation of suspicion has any foundation the matter should be investigated unless there are exceptional circumstances. It says the strategy meeting must minute clear action points and timescales for each action.
18. The procedure says the strategy meeting will be reconvened to conclude the investigation. That is to agree on the outcome of the investigation. It says the chair will notify various people, including the parents, of any recommendations made at the meeting. It says consideration should be given to holding a debriefing meeting for all involved whatever the outcome.

What happened

19. Ms B has a special guardianship order for her grandson, who has Downs Syndrome and other medical conditions. In February 2018 Ms B signed a section 20 agreement, agreeing for her grandson to be placed in foster care or a residential unit as she could not cope with him at home any more.
20. The joint complex needs panel considered the case in February 2018. The panel noted despite searching more than 60 agencies it had only identified one potential foster family. Members of the panel raised concerns about whether a foster family environment was suitable. The Council researched further placements and identified a placement at Cameron House. Ms B’s grandson moved into Cameron House at the beginning of March 2018.
21. A further complex needs panel considered the case at the end of March and noted Ms B’s grandson had settled well. A looked after child review took place at the beginning of April.
22. At the beginning of June Ms B raised concerns about how Cameron House staff were managing her grandson’s behaviour. The home provided the Council with statements from the staff of what took place during the day in question. The social worker also met with Ms B’s grandson and noted he appeared comfortable in his new surroundings and did not give any indication of being unsettled or distressed.
23. Ms B and her daughter raised further concerns about the treatment of Ms B’s grandson later in June. A Council officer spoke to Ms B. Ms B asked whether her grandson could move to a different placement. Ms B also said she could have her grandson back in her care provided she received additional short breaks.
24. Ms B raised further concerns with the Council when Cameron House prevented her access.
25. The Council contacted the LADO about the concerns raised. The LADO said the issues appeared standard of care issues and recommended the social worker carry out an unannounced visit and obtain incident reports of the times when Ms B’s grandson had been taken to the sensory room.
26. On 24 June following an extended contact at Ms B’s home her grandson refused to return to Cameron House. Ms B took him home with her. A social worker visited Ms B the following day. The social worker explained because Ms B had taken her grandson home he would no longer be considered a looked after child as he had been placed voluntarily under section 20. Ms B said she wanted her grandson back at home with her but with additional support.
27. Ms B had to contact the police on 28 June because her grandson attacked her.
28. On 29 June the Council contacted a previous respite placement used by Ms B, Leyton Green, to see if it could provide further respite. Leyton Green said it could not as Ms B’s grandson no longer met the criteria for short breaks. The Council contacted Ms B and suggested returning her grandson to Cameron House. Ms B declined as she did not consider it a suitable placement.
29. Ms B attended hospital with her grandson on 2 July after she says she visited the GP. The Council again offered the option of returning Ms B’s grandson to Cameron House.
30. The Council held a professionals meeting on 4 July. The meeting noted Ms B was finding it difficult to manage her grandson’s challenging behaviour and recorded his behaviour may be beyond parental control. The meeting noted Ms B had asked for an extra two hours support each day and respite at the weekend. The meeting agreed to arrange a further meeting with Ms B to discuss the possibility of her grandson returning to Cameron House on a respite basis.
31. The Council held a further meeting on 5 July and agreed to carry out a child and family assessment.
32. Council officers carried out an unannounced visit to Cameron House in July 2018. The visit did not raise any major concerns.
33. The Council began looking for alternative placements. Ms B continued to report difficulties managing her grandson and her need for extra support. Ms B raised concerns about the lack of support over the previous weeks.
34. The Council told Ms B about two possible placements in July 2018 and completed a referral for short breaks.
35. Two potential placements assessed Ms B’s grandson in July 2018. Ms B contacted the Council on 25 July to say she considered Potton Homes the most appropriate placement.
36. Ms B’s daughter again raised concerns about the lack of support for Ms B at the end of July 2018. Ms B’s daughter made clear the Council needed to have put something in place by the end of August when Ms B was due to go on holiday.
37. The Council’s corporate parenting group discussed the case on 8 August. The meeting noted Ms B had selected Potton Homes but the cost was more than the Council would normally pay. The meeting recommended the social worker encourage Ms B to view the second provision. Ms B and her grandson visited Potton Homes and Dartford House later in August. Following those visits Ms B told the Council she considered Potton Homes the most appropriate.
38. Ms B emailed the Council later in August to thank it for arranging for Leyton Green to have her grandson while she was on holiday, following a telephone call with the social worker.
39. The Council made further enquiries with Dartford House about its suitability to meet Ms B’s grandson’s needs. The Council was subsequently satisfied with the information provided by Dartford House. Ms B signed a section 20 agreement later that day and her grandson moved into Dartford House.
40. The Council held a place planning meeting while Ms B was on holiday.
41. In September Ms B told the Council she had told child benefit about her grandson’s change of address. In response the Council advised her she also needed to tell DLA. The Council later wrote to DLA.
42. The Council carried out a looked after children’s review at Dartford House in September 2018.
43. In October 2018 the grandson’s school raised some concerns about Dartford House providing him with sweets and fizzy drinks. The Council notified the placement of the concerns. The Council also asked for advice from the LADO. The LADO subsequently told the Council it did not consider the concerns met the threshold for support. The LADO suggested a meeting with the school.
44. At the end of October 2018 Dartford House made the Council aware of an incident following Ms B taking her grandson out. The Council told Ms B as a result if she took her grandson out into the community she needed to have a member of staff from Dartford House with her. In response Ms B said there was no issue until her grandson returned to Dartford House and she did not consider it necessary for a member of Dartford House staff to accompany her on visits with her grandson into the community. Visits continued unsupervised.
45. The Council contacted Ms B in November 2018 to tell her it intended to reduce her weekly contact a fortnightly. The Council said it had done that because her grandson was missing out on activities which would allow him to form relationships with his peers. Ms B disagreed. The Council suggested a contact meeting, which Ms B declined. Contact continued on a weekly basis.
46. Later in November Ms B told the Council she intended to collect her grandson for an overnight stay. The Council told Ms B it considered it too early for an overnight stay.
47. Ms B removed her grandson from the placement in December 2018. The Council subsequently accommodated Ms B’s grandson again under section 20 later in December 2018 when he attacked Ms B. Ms B’s grandson initially returned to Dartford House and then moved to another placement in May 2019.

Analysis

48. Ms B says the Council failed to consider the suitability of Cameron House as a placement for her grandson before it placed him there. Ms B says her grandson has complex needs and Cameron House was not a suitable placement. The process the Council is supposed to follow when identifying a suitable placement is set out in paragraphs 10-12. I have found no evidence to suggest the Council followed that process when placing Ms B’s grandson in Cameron House. Having said that though, it is clear from the documentary evidence the Council had to place Ms B’s grandson in Cameron House as an emergency because the foster placement it had identified fell through and it was felt there was a risk to Ms B if her grandson remained in her care. In the circumstances of this case I can understand why the Council would not have followed the process fully in placing Ms B’s grandson. I therefore do not consider this warrants a finding of fault, particularly as Cameron House is identified a suitable for children with learning disabilities, which applies to Ms B’s grandson.
49. I understand Ms B’s concern though about Cameron House being identified as a long-term placement, which Ms B describes as permanent, when the Council had not gone through the normal process before placing her grandson there. I am satisfied though Ms B’s grandson remained a looked after child and subject to regular looked after child review meetings. During those meetings Ms B, other family members and professionals involved in the grandson’s care, could put forward their views about how the placement was progressing. I am therefore satisfied identifying the placement as permanent did not mean there was no opportunity to review it.
50. Ms B says she and another family member raised concerns about the care provided by Cameron House to her grandson and the Council failed to act. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council notified the concerns to the LADO and asked for her advice, held a meeting and completed an unannounced visit to Cameron House to investigate the concerns. There is no evidence though the Council held a strategy meeting, which its procedures say should take place. Nor is there evidence the Council fed back its findings to Ms B. So, while I am satisfied the Council investigated the concerns Ms B raised I am not satisfied it followed its procedure. I appreciate the LADO said the concerns related to standard of care. Nevertheless the Council should have held a strategy meeting to decide how to proceed and failure to do that, and feed back to Ms B, is fault.
51. Ms B is also concerned the Council failed to act when staff at Cameron House prevented her from visiting her grandson. Ms B says the staff at Cameron House incorrectly told her the social worker had told them not to allow Ms B entry when that is not accurate. The first point to make here is the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the actions of the provider. I therefore cannot comment on the actions of Cameron House in preventing Ms B access. It is clear though Cameron House prevented access in June 2018 and I am satisfied Ms B told the Council about that. I understand Ms B’s concern here because her grandson was only accommodated voluntarily under section 20 and she retained parental responsibility for him. I would have expected the Council to explain that to the provider and I have seen no evidence it did so. That is fault. The Council has already apologised. I welcome that.
52. Ms B is concerned at the looked after child review which took place on 18 June 2018 the independent reviewing officer did not give credence to Ms B’s concerns about the placement and the need to move her grandson to an alternative placement. Ms B says the independent reviewing officer appeared mainly worried about her grandson moving elsewhere. While I understand Ms B’s concern, I cannot criticise officers for raising any concerns they had about the implications for Ms B’s grandson if he moved. I am, however, satisfied the looked after child review meeting in June 2018 made clear the concerns raised by Ms B were to be dealt with in a separate meeting. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
53. Ms B says the Council failed to act on the school’s referral to the LADO when her grandson was seen with a mark to his neck and a bruise under his eye while living at Cameron House. I have seen no evidence to suggest the school raised a concern about a mark on Ms B’s grandson’s neck or a bruise under his eye while he was living at Cameron House. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
54. Ms B says the Council received a referral from NSPCC and failed to place that referral on file or investigate it. This again relates to the issues Ms B and other family members raised about Cameron House. As I said earlier, I am satisfied those concerns were investigated by the Council. As I have not seen a copy of the referral from the NSPCC though I could not say the Council had placed that on the file and that is fault.
55. Ms B says in a meeting on 5 July 2018 the Council said it did not matter about investigating the concerns Ms B had raised because her grandson no longer lived at Cameron House. While I have seen nothing in the documentation to suggest this comment was made I am satisfied the Council investigated the concerns. I am therefore satisfied the fact Ms B’s grandson moved out of the placement did not prevent the Council investigating.
56. Ms B says the Council failed to put in place support when she took her grandson back home when the placement broke down in June 2018. Having considered the documentary evidence I can see Ms B asked the Council for extra support when she took her grandson home. The Council’s own documentation describes the situation as a disaster waiting to happen while Ms B was caring for her grandson and not receiving the support she had requested. In those circumstances I am concerned it took until 25 July 2018 before the Council made available 150 hours of short break support. I appreciate before that the Council had offered Ms B the option of returning her grandson to Cameron House. However, given the circumstances that led to the placement breaking down and Ms B’s description of how scared her grandson was to return, I can see from her point of view this was not an option. I am satisfied though Ms B had access to direct payments which she says the Council reintroduced and increased from four to six hours per week. I am therefore satisfied there was support in place which Ms B could have used. I consider though the Council should have acted earlier to identify short break support and failure to do that is fault.
57. I am aware Ms B is concerned about the option the Council suggested for short break support. Ms B says the option the Council identified was not suitable for her grandson. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the Council told Ms B it would provide her with 150 hours of short break support. There was no requirement for Ms B to choose the provider the Council suggested and it is clear this was just a suggestion. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
58. Ms B says the Council should have considered further foster placements in June 2018. There is nothing in the documentary evidence to suggest the Council considered that option in June 2018. However, I note Ms B’s grandson was placed at Cameron House because the Council could not identify a suitable foster placement, despite searching 60 agencies. Given that was the outcome a few months earlier I do not consider it likely if the Council had considered a foster placement at that point it would have been successful. It is also clear the Council had concerns about whether a foster family environment was suitable for Ms B’s grandson before he moved into Cameron House. In those circumstances I do not criticise the Council.
59. Ms B is concerned about the Council’s recordings about action Cameron House allegedly took when her grandson refused to return to the placement. Ms B says although a member of staff came out of the building they did nothing to offer any help or assistance. Ms B also says the Council’s documentation wrongly records Cameron House staff had telephoned and/or visited her when that is not accurate. I cannot reach a safe conclusion about what action Cameron House staff took on the day Ms B’s grandson refused to return to the placement. There is no evidence though staff from Cameron House telephoned or visited Ms B after she took her grandson home, as is recorded in the Council’s documentation. I therefore consider the Council’s documentation inaccurate on this point. That is fault. The Council has apologised for that, which I welcome.
60. Ms B says when she took her grandson to hospital on 2 July 2018 the social worker wrongly told the hospital not to complete a mental health assessment for her grandson. Having considered the documentary evidence, I have seen nothing to suggest the Council told the hospital not complete a mental health assessment. In any event, it would have been for the health professionals dealing with Ms B’s grandson at the hospital to have made a decision about whether he needed a mental health assessment. As I have seen no evidence the Council influenced the decision about that I have no grounds to criticise it.
61. Ms B says the Council wrongly said her grandson could not have respite care at Leyton Green due to a legal technicality and because he would exceed the limits of the number of short break nights he had received. The evidence I have seen satisfies me when Ms B took her grandson home the Council contacted Leyton Green to see whether he could have respite visits there. The documentary evidence shows Leyton Green told the Council the criteria for short breaks had changed in 2016 and only children who remained on the books since then continued to receive support. Leyton Green explained because Ms B’s grandson had left the service when he moved into Cameron House he no longer met the criteria for short breaks. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s decision on respite breaks at Leyton Green was based on the information provided by Leyton Green. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for telling Ms B her grandson could not have respite breaks at Leyton Green. However, I am concerned the Council did not provide a full explanation, detailing its discussions with Leyton Green about the issue. If the Council had done that it may have satisfied Ms B. Failure to share the information is therefore fault.
62. Ms B says the Council delayed organising a placement for her grandson when she was due to go on holiday at the end of August 2018. I understand Ms B’s concern here because the placement was not confirmed until the day before Ms B went on holiday. I have no doubt this caused her some stress. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me potential placements for Ms B’s grandson were not identified until the start of August 2018. There was then the need for Ms B and the social worker to visit the placements and for the Council to approve the placement. In this case the placement agreed by the Council was Dartford House and the evidence I have seen satisfies me that placement was not confirmed until 30 August because the Council had some outstanding concerns about whether it was a suitable provision which it did not resolve until the day before Ms B went on holiday. As I have seen no evidence to suggest the delay happened due to fault by the Council I have no grounds to criticise it.
63. Ms B says the Council falsely said her grandson could stay at Leyton Green while she was on holiday and then transition to a placement at TVRS. The documentary evidence shows a placement at TVRS was discussed with Ms B towards the end of August 2018. That includes an email from the social worker where she suggests Ms B’s grandson might be able to go to Leyton Green before Ms B went on holiday and then move to TVRS. That does not confirm this as a definite plan. Instead, it says Leyton Green will confirm whether they can do that the following week and TVRS still needed to meet Ms B’s grandson. It appears though this was followed up by a telephone call to Ms B where she was told Leyton Green had agreed to have her grandson. That is not supported by any of the other documentary evidence. I consider the Council’s recordings in relation to the plan leading up to Ms B’s grandson moving to Dartford House are confused. It is therefore not surprising Ms B was confused about where her grandson would go and for how long. The confusing nature of the Council’s communications with Ms B about its plans for her grandson when she went on holiday is fault.
64. Ms B says the Council failed to explain it had ended the section 20 agreement when she took her grandson back to live with her temporarily in June 2018. As I said in paragraphs 8 and 9, a section 20 agreement is a voluntary arrangement where the person with parental responsibility agrees for the Council to accommodate a child. The section 20 agreement Ms B signed is clear the person with parental responsibility can end the agreement at any time. The issue is therefore with whether Ms B knew taking her grandson out of Cameron House ended the section 20 agreement.
65. I have considered the documentary evidence. This shows a social worker visited Ms B on 25 June 2018 after she took her grandson home when he would not return to his placement. The notes from that visit show the social worker told Ms B as her grandson had been placed with the Council voluntarily under a section 20 agreement and had returned home he would no longer be considered a looked after child. The notes at that point show Ms B saying she wanted her grandson to live back at home with her but with extra support. While there was no specific reference to the section 20 agreement coming to an end I do not consider the Council at fault for not specifically making that point. That is because I am satisfied the Council had told Ms B that by taking her grandson home and intending to care for him at home he was no longer consider a looked after child which is, in effect, the same as ending the section 20 agreement. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
66. Ms B says the Council misled her about its intentions when it placed her grandson in a new placement in August 2018. Ms B says she was led to believe the placement was a respite placement and was not told it was a permanent placement. Having considered the documentary evidence I have not seen anything to suggest the Council told Ms B the new placement in August 2018 was for respite. As I said earlier though, irrespective of the nature of the placement Ms B’s grandson was still a looked after child. What that meant is regular looked after child review meetings were held. So, whether the placement was identified as temporary or permanent does not change the fact there was an opportunity at each looked after child review meeting to consider whether the placement was appropriate. Given that fact plus the fact I have seen nothing to suggest the Council told Ms B the placement was for respite I have no grounds to criticise it. I have also found no evidence to suggest the Council told Ms B the new placement was intended to be temporary, pending a move to TVRS.
67. Ms B is concerned the Council insisted she sign a second section 20 agreement before her grandson moved into Dartford House. I consider part of the issue here is Ms B believed the previous section 20 agreement she signed for Cameron House was still in effect. As I said earlier, removing her grandson from Cameron House and telling the Council she intended to have him at home living with her with extra support brought the section 20 agreement to an end. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for seeking a further section 20 agreement. I appreciate Ms B felt under pressure to sign the agreement given she was going on holiday the following day. However, as I said earlier, I have found no evidence to suggest the delay identifying the new placement was due to any fault by the Council. Since the Council could not accommodate Ms Bs grandson without her agreement I cannot criticise it for asking her to sign a section 20 agreement on the day he went into the placement.
68. Ms B says the Council failed to consider Potton Homes, which was her preferred placement for her grandson, and instead placed him in Dartford House which she did not consider suitable for his needs. I cover the issue of whether Dartford House was suitable for Ms B’s grandson’s needs later in this statement. In terms of the consideration of the next placement for Ms B’s grandson I am satisfied the Council did not dismiss Potton Homes out of hand. The documentary evidence shows both Potton Homes and Dartford House were under consideration in August 2018. I am also satisfied the social worker visited both placements and sought additional information from both to assist the Council’s assessment. The report for the complex needs panel also referred to both placements and the advantages and disadvantages of each. I therefore could not say the Council failed to consider Potton Homes as a placement.
69. The issue is therefore with the recording of the Council’s decision to choose Dartford House. The documentary evidence shows the Council set out what it considered the benefits of placing Ms B’s grandson at Dartford House were. It is not my role to comment on the merits of that view, no matter how much Ms B disagrees with it. For completeness though I would have expected the decision to record why Potton Homes was not considered appropriate, particularly given the social worker and Ms B both preferred that option. Failure to do that is fault. That does not mean though the benefits of Potton Homes were not considered, only that the Council has not clearly documented its reasoning.
70. Ms B says the Council rejected Potton Homes on cost grounds. It is clear in the report for the complex needs panel Potton Homes cost more than Dartford House. The cost was also above the amount the Council normally pays for its placements. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council dismissed Potton Homes out of hand because of the cost issue. Rather, the evidence shows the Council asked Potton Homes for some detail to justify the charge it was making. In any event, it is not fault for the Council to take into account the cost of placements when deciding where to place a child. The Council has a responsibility to use public money wisely and cost is therefore a factor it can take into account. In this case though when setting out the benefits of Dartford House the Council did not refer to cost and instead referred to various other issues. That satisfies me cost alone was not the reason for the decision, although the Council could have documented the decision-making process better.
71. Ms B says the Council failed to consider the suitability of Dartford House before placing her grandson there. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council visited Dartford House before deciding to place Ms B’s grandson there. The notes from that visit show the Council was satisfied the young people living there at that point had similar needs to Ms B’s grandson. The Council also asked Dartford House to provide some additional information to support its assessment of the placement. As I said in the previous paragraph, the Council then set out clear reasons why it considered Dartford House a suitable placement for Ms B’s grandson. I therefore could not say the Council failed to consider the suitability of Dartford House before placing her grandson there.
72. Ms B says at the time the Council was considering Dartford House it was also considering a third placement at TVRS. Ms B says despite that the Council did not provide her with any information about that placement and the social worker failed to arrive on the day Ms B was due to visit the placement. Having considered the documentary evidence I have found nothing to suggest the Council arranged a visit to TVRS, although I have no reason to doubt what Ms B says. As I said earlier though, it is clear the Council was considering an alternative placement at TVRS and failure to make clear to Ms B why it was not pursuing that option is fault.
73. Ms B says the Council failed to properly investigate the option of a residential school placement. The Council’s documentation does not refer to a residential school placement. However, Ms B has provided a copy of an email where she refers to discussions about a residential school option which she considered suitable for her grandson. The Council says it decided not to go with that option because it considered Ms B’s grandson was settled at school and it would not be appropriate to move him. I understand the Council’s view here. However, I would have expected the Council to record that decision in writing and to have told Ms B why it did not consider a residential school appropriate. Failure to do that is fault.
74. Ms B says the Council told her it would hold the placement planning meeting for Dartford House after she returned from holiday. Ms B says instead the Council held the placement planning meeting while she was away. As I said in paragraph 13, the Council holds a placement planning meeting either before a child is placed in a placement or within five working days of that placement beginning. The Council was therefore not wrong to hold the placement planning meeting in Ms B’s absence as it had to hold that meeting within five working days. However, the documentary evidence shows Ms B was told the placement planning meeting would only take place once she had returned from holiday. I therefore consider the Council at fault for misleading Ms B. I have seen no evidence to suggest the issue of Ms B not taking part in the placement planning meeting was raised at the looked after child review though. In those circumstances I see no reason why the independent reviewing officer would have needed to explore that point further.
75. Ms B says the resulting placement plan had incorrect information in it. Ms B says the plan incorrectly referred to her grandson having a stepfather and went on to suggest her grandson’s challenging and aggressive behaviour was only evident in Ms B’s home. Ms B says both of those references are incorrect. The Council has accepted that and apologised. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint given those inaccuracies did not affect the Council’s decision making process in this case.
76. Ms B says the Council completed an inaccurate care plan and did not involve her in it. For instance, Ms B says the care plan said she had received short breaks and incorrectly said another child had moved into the placement that her grandson could communicate with when that child was only there for respite.
77. In terms of the drawing up the care plan, the Council’s procedure says this should normally be undertaken in conjunction with those with parental responsibility. However, for children accommodated under section 20 the Council’s process also says the care plan should be drawn up at the placement planning meeting. Given Ms B was not at the placement planning meeting she was not involved in the drawing up of the care plan. I therefore do not consider the way the Council went about drawing up the care plan is fault. I am satisfied though the Council later included Ms B’s comments in the plan.
78. In terms of the inaccuracies in the care plan, the documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council made available short breaks to Ms B’s grandson in the past and therefore the reference to that is not inaccurate, particularly given the Council also made available 150 hours of short break support between the two placements. For the other child moving into the placement, I cannot comment on whether a child was placed there permanently or for respite as Ms B suggests. If it was for respite it would have been better for the care plan to refer to that fact, although I do not consider that affects the overall plan itself. The Council is at fault though for the delay providing Ms B with a copy of the care plan. The Council has apologised for that, which I welcome.
79. Ms B is concerned the Council said in the care plan she (Ms B) felt she had no other option but to sign the section 20 agreement otherwise she would not have been able to go on holiday. Ms B denies making that statement. Having considered the documentary records I note there is a record from when the social worker visited Ms B on 30 August 2018. That record confirms Ms B made this statement. I appreciate Ms B denies making the statement but as it is recorded in the documentary records I cannot criticise the Council for including that statement in the care plan.
80. Ms B says the social work report for the September 2018 looked after child review contained 15 inaccuracies. I will deal with each in turn.
81. The first two concerns Ms B raises relate to reference in the report to staff from Cameron House visiting her at her property to support her to come back to Cameron House when no such visit took place and reference to a staff member from the placement helping her when her grandson was kicking and screaming and refusing to go in. I cover those issues in paragraph 59 of this statement. As I have made clear, including inaccurate information in reports is fault. I do not consider in this case this has affected the overall decision-making by the Council though.
82. Ms B says the report wrongly refers to her grandson saying he was sacred to go back to Cameron House. Ms B says her grandson was clearly saying he was scared and nobody else has interpreted it as sacred. Having considered the documentary evidence there is some reference to Ms B’s grandson being scared and other records referring to him as being sacred. It is clear to me this is a spelling mistake in the report. Failing to correct that is therefore fault. That error has been repeated elsewhere in other documentation.
83. Ms B says the report refers to the police taking her grandson to hospital on 28 June 2018 but does not refer to the fact the police also took her to the hospital, stayed with them for the duration and took them home. I understand Ms B’s desire for the report to be comprehensive. However, I am satisfied the description of events on 28 June 2018 reflects the information the Council received from the hospital. So, while it did not provide extra information, I do not consider the information included in the report inaccurate.
84. Ms B says the report misrepresents what happened when she took her grandson to hospital on 2 July 2018. Ms B says the report wrongly says she took him to hospital because he was displaying challenging behaviour when the GP surgery had telephoned for an ambulance and the police. Again, I understand why Ms B would want the report to be comprehensive. I am satisfied though the wording in the report reflects the information the hospital provided to the Council. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
85. Ms B says the report refers to an incident at the hospital following which her grandson was discharged back into her care. Ms B says the Council’s reference to that does not make any sense. This is where the Council says ‘would search for a suitable placement was identified.’ I agree that sentence does not make any sense and I consider it is likely to be an error. I believe the social worker was intending to say ‘while a suitable placement was identified.’ That is again an inaccuracy and fault.
86. Ms B says the report wrongly refers to her saying the intentions of Cameron House were sinister when she never used that word. Ms B also says Cameron House did not say at the meeting on 5 July 2018 she was rude and confrontational towards staff. In terms of the use of the word sinister, I have seen nothing in Ms B’s communications to suggest she used that word. It is clear Ms B had raised concerns about the suitability of Cameron House and I therefore consider it likely this was the social worker’s interpretation of what Ms B said. It is not my role to comment on the judgement reached by the social worker.
87. In terms of what Cameron House had said about Ms B’s actions, I am satisfied Cameron House had referred to issues with how Ms B had dealt with its staff, albeit not at the 5 July meeting. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for including that information.
88. Ms B says the social work report refers to her grandson receiving a service from short breaks. Ms B says this was inaccurate as the Council’s suggestion for short breaks was unsuitable for him. While I understand Ms B’s point, it is a fact that her grandson has received support from short breaks in the past. While the Council suggested a placement to Ms B I have already made clear this was only a suggestion. I therefore do not consider the comment in the report inaccurate.
89. Ms B is concerned about the description of Dartford House as the most appropriate placement and failing to mention Potton Homes and TVRS. It would have been helpful for completeness for the report to refer to Ms B’s choice being Potton Homes and the other option considered. However, I do not consider failing to do that warrants a finding of fault.
90. Ms B says the report refers to staff at the home not having to hide her grandson’s medication in his yoghurt as Ms B was doing. As far as I can see Ms B is not challenging the accuracy of this statement and is instead providing some clarification about why she took the action she did. I therefore do not consider the report inaccurate on this point.
91. Ms B says the report refers to her grandson sleeping and eating well and not asking to go home. Ms B points out the care plan contradicts that by referring to occasions when he has asked to go home. That is also contradicted by another part of the social work report. That is fault.
92. Ms B says the report wrongly says her grandson has not displayed difficult to manage behaviours. Ms B says the report immediately contradicts itself by referring to an incident when he got into a stranger’s car and refused to get out. I agree those two sentences are contradictory and failing to provide context to the Council’s reasoning is fault.
93. Ms B is concerned the report refers to her saying she was depressed when she did not say that. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied Ms B told the Council on 14 September 2018 she had not said she was diagnosed with depression but at the time she felt depressed. I am therefore satisfied the report is not inaccurate in relation to that point.
94. The final point in relation to the report is that it refers to her grandson interacting well with the other young people he lives with. Ms B says this suggests he was living with several children when he only lived with one other child who he found it difficult to communicate with. Having considered the documentary evidence I have not identified anything to suggest Ms B’s grandson had difficulty communicating with the other young person he lived with. I am also satisfied the documentary evidence shows at the point at which Ms B’s grandson moved into the placement there were three other people living there. As I am not sure how long those people remained living there I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether the report is inaccurate when referring to more than one young person. I have seen no evidence though to suggest the communication issues referred to in the report are inaccurate.
95. Ms B says the Council wrongly recorded the looked after review on 24 September 2018 as the first review. Ms B says it was the third review because she had never rescinded the section 20 agreement. As I said in paragraph 64, by taking her grandson home and telling the Council he would not be going back to his placement Ms B had brought the original section 20 agreement to an end. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for recording the September 2018 review as a first review.
96. Ms B says the Council failed to record in the looked after child review minutes for September 2018 that the independent reviewing officer had previously chaired reviews. I am satisfied the minutes from the review meeting recorded the independent reviewing officer had known Ms B’s grandson for over a year. I see no reason why it would have needed to refer to whether she had chaired previous meetings. I do not consider that fault.
97. Ms B says during the September 2018 review meeting the independent reviewing officer wrongly recorded her grandson had returned to live with her. Having considered the notes from the independent review I am satisfied these record Ms B’s grandson was previously living at Cameron House but that had broken down and he went to live with Ms B for a while. I do not consider that factually inaccurate and I therefore do not criticise the Council.
98. Ms B says the Council failed to inform attendees at the looked after child review on 3 December 2018 it was cancelled as the social worker was on annual leave. Ms B says this meant she and other parties present made a wasted journey. The Council accepts the social worker did not attend the review meeting and did not tell other attendees. The Council has apologised. I welcome that.
99. In terms of contact between Ms B and her grandson the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council decided to reduce Ms B contact from fortnightly to weekly, decided her contact with her grandson in the community should be supervised and refused an overnight stay for Ms B’s grandson in November 2018 without consulting Ms B. The Council’s documentary records are also inaccurate in stating those matters were discussed and agreed at review meetings. That again is fault. Ms B has retained parental responsibility for her grandson throughout the entire period. Her grandson was only accommodated voluntarily under section 20. That means all decisions relating to her grandson’s care should still have been made in conjunction with Ms B. Failure to do that is fault.
100. I have seen no evidence though to support Ms B’s allegation the Council arranged a contact meeting without her. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council emailed Ms B to suggest a meeting about contact but there is no evidence such a meeting ever took place once Ms B declined to attend.
101. The Council accepts it failed to investigate Ms Bs concerns about the care provided to her grandson at Dartford House. I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. Although the Council referred the matter to the LADO there is no evidence of any follow-up investigation after that, although there were some communications with the home about the issues raised. Failure to properly investigate the concerns is fault.
102. Ms B says the Council wrongly contacted child benefit and disability living allowance (DLA) to inform them her grandson was no longer living with her. Ms B says that led to the removal of those benefits. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council contacted child benefit to inform it. Rather, the documentary evidence shows Ms B told the Council she had contacted child benefit. For DLA though, it is clear the Council suggested to Ms B she needed to contact DLA to tell them about her grandson moving into a placement. I cannot criticise the Council for telling Ms B about her need to do that given the information the Council gave Ms B was accurate. However, it is also clear the Council wrote to DLA to tell it Ms B’s grandson was no longer living with her. I would have expected the Council to discuss its intention to send a letter to DLA with Ms B given she retained parental responsibility for her grandson. Failure to do that is therefore fault.
103. The Council accepts it delayed considering Ms B’s complaint. Ms B put in her stage one complaint in December 2018 but the Council did not respond until February 2019. Ms B then put in her stage two complaint on 11 March 2019. The Council did not respond to that complaint until December 2019. Those delays are fault. I am satisfied the Council has put in place a procedure to ensure oversight of complaints at stage one and two to prevent delays where possible. I welcome that.
104. I am also concerned, however, about how the Council dealt with Ms B’s request for stage three. The Council initially agreed to carry out a stage three investigation but later declined because it considered Ms B’s concerns about inaccuracies in the files could be dealt with by other means. I am concerned about that because Ms B was also raising concerns about the findings reached in the stage two investigation. I appreciate the Council was concerned Ms B was asking it to reinvestigate the complaint at stage three, which is not the role of that process. Nevertheless, Ms B had raised concerns about how conclusions had been reached and the evidence considered and I therefore consider the Council should have carried out a stage three panel. Failure to do that is fault.
105. The Council has also upheld Ms B’s concerns about the failure to involve the independent reviewing officer in the stage one response and for failing to provide a complete response at that stage. The Council has apologised for that.
106. I have therefore found fault by the Council in various parts of this complaint. I am satisfied those faults have caused Ms B distress and have led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. I also consider Ms B was left without enough support for longer than she should have been, although I have taken into account the support that was in place. As remedy I recommended the Council apologise to Ms B, pay her £750 and place on file alongside the documents her comments about inaccuracies in the care plan, placement plan and social work report for the September 2018 review. In addition to that I recommended the Council carry out training for social workers as detailed in paragraph 108. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

107. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms B for the faults identified in this statement which caused Ms B distress and led to her having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint;
• pay Ms B £750 to reflect her distress and uncertainty about whether some of the issues identified could have been avoided; and
• place on the file a copy of Ms B’s comments about the inaccuracies in the placement plan, care plan and social work report for the September 2018 review, to be read alongside the original documents.
108. Within two months of my decision the Council should:
• carry out training for social workers on section 20 placements and what that means in terms of involving those with parental responsibility in decision-making, particularly around contact;
• carry out training for social workers on the procedure to follow when concerns have been raised about treatment of young people in placements;
• remind officers of the need to ensure detailed case recordings are made to explain the Council’s decision-making when identifying a suitable placement, including a record of why alternative placements have not been considered appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

109. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman