Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not provided her with appropriate support as a care leaver. She also complains it has placed unreasonable restrictions on her contact and of poor complaint handling. There was no fault in the support the Council provided to her, or in how it made its decisions to impose contact restrictions and discontinue the investigation into her complaint. There was delay in providing her with an initial complaint response, but the Council has already apologised for this, which is an appropriate remedy. There was also delay in providing her with a copy of her pathway plan, but this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. The Council should ensure it provides care leavers with a copy of their pathway plan in a timely manner.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not provided her with appropriate support as a care leaver. She also says it has handled another complaint she made poorly and placed unreasonable restrictions on her contact. She wants the Council to provide her with appropriate support as a care leaver and remove the restrictions on her contact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent me. I also considered information received from Ms X.
7. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Councils duties to care leavers

8. Councils duties to provide support and assistance to care leavers are set out in the Children (Leaving care) Act 2000 and the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The government has produced statutory guidance for local authorities on how to carry out these duties.
9. The duty to support care leavers applies to all care leavers up to age 21, but can continue up to age 25, if the care leaver requests this support.
10. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal advisor, and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal advisor will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. It must be kept up to date and reviewed at least every 6 months. Councils have a duty to keep in touch with carer leavers and must visit them at least once every two months.

The Council’s procedures for young people in and leaving care

11. The Council’s policy sets out how it will provide support to young people in its area. It says all young people will have an allocated worker and a pathway plan which it will review at least every 6 months.
12. The allocated worker will be the young person’s main source of contact in any matter relating to the pathway plan. They will have a key role in supporting the young person in all areas of their lives, assisting care leavers to prepare for adulthood and independent living.
13. Contact with the young person should be at least once a month but may be more frequent in order to meet the needs of the person.

The statutory children’s complaints procedure

14. Statutory guidance sets out the procedure councils must follow for complaints about children’s services. The procedure has three stages:
• Stage 1 – local resolution. Council have 20 working days to provide a response. If the complainant remains unhappy, they can request their complaint is progressed to Stage 2;
• Stage 2 – independent investigation. At this stage the council should appoint an independent investigating officer (IO) to complete the investigation and an independent person (IP) to oversee the investigation. The investigation is usually completed within 25 days but can be extended to up to 65 days. If the complainant remains unhappy with this response, they can request their complaint is progressed to Stage 3.
• Stage 3 – a review of Stage 2 investigation by an independent panel.
15. The procedure also gives guidance to councils on how to manage unreasonably persistent complainants and unacceptable behaviour.
16. It says unreasonably persistent behaviour may include:
• Frequent, lengthy complicated and stressful contact with local authority staff;
• The complainant behaving in an aggressive manner to staff or being verbally abusive or threatening;
• The complainant persistently approaching the local authority through different routes about the same issue in the hope of getting different responses.
17. It says councils should not expect staff to tolerate behaviour which is abusive, offensive or threatening, and should take action to protect staff from this behaviour. Where a complainant continues to behave in a way that is unacceptable, a council may decide to discontinue any investigation into the complaint. If a council chooses this option, it must inform the complainant of their right to approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Council’s habitual and vexatious complainant’s policy

18. Northumberland Council also has a local policy to effectively manage complaints from habitual or vexatious complainants.
19. It says habitual or vexatious behaviours include:
• Verbal threats or use of physical violence towards council employees;
• Excessive number of contacts with the council placing unreasonable demands on employees;
• Harassing or being verbally abusive towards employees;
• Making unreasonable demands of the Council and failing to accept that these may be unreasonable.
20. It sets out what the Council should consider before deciding to implement the policy, and the actions it may decide to take.
21. It says where there is actual of threatened verbal or physical abuse, it will refer the matter to the Police for further investigation.

What happened

Advice and support provided to Ms X and the restrictions on her contact

22. Ms X is a care leaver. In October 2018, Ms X met with her personal advisor to update her pathway plan. The plan said Ms X met with her personal advisor monthly, but she could make daily contact with her advisor for advice and assistance via text message and phone. It said her advisor would respond to this whenever possible. It encouraged Ms X to seek medical advice and support for her mental health.
23. Between November 2018 and January 2019, Miss X met with her advisor four times and received regular telephone advice and support. On several days in January, she made multiple calls to the Council. She also sent multiple text messages and email communications.
24. At the end of January 2019, Ms X refused to get out of her advisor’s car after an appointment. After three hours, the Council called the police. Ms X then got out of the car and went home.
25. The advisor discussed the incident with her manager. They expressed concern about Ms X’s behaviour and asked for advice on how to appropriately support Ms X.
26. In February 2019, the Council met with Ms X to discuss her behaviour. It said Ms X’s behaviour and contact with the service was both inappropriate and excessive. It gave Ms X a letter detailing the Council’s concerns and setting out a behaviour agreement. Ms X signed the behaviour agreement at the meeting. It said her advisor would now ring her once a week to provide advice and support. Outside of this call, Ms X should call the duty team with any further support needs. It said the Council would consider changing her allocated worker if Ms X did not keep to the agreement and if necessary, would consider both police and legal action. It said it would review the agreement in 2 weeks.
27. The next day Ms X contacted the service more than 30 times.
28. Later in February, the Council sent Ms X a follow up letter repeating the behaviour agreement and the possible consequences if she did not keep to it.
29. Ms X continued to make multiple calls and emails to the Council.
30. In March 2019, Ms X met with her advisor. They discussed her behaviour and her advisor told her the Council may contact the police if the behaviour continued.
31. Ms X continued to make multiple calls to the Council throughout March. At times she expressed suicidal thoughts. On these occasions the Council contacted the Mental Health service for advice and support.
32. With Ms X’s consent, her advisor referred her to a counselling service.
33. Later in the month, the advisor met again with Ms X. The police were present at this meeting. They discussed her behaviour and excessive contact. The advisor said despite her repeated contacts, Ms X had not identified any specific need for which she required support.
34. Ms X continued to make repeated calls most days both to her advisor and the duty team. The Council provided her with advice on several different topics including housing and employment. It contacted the police and the mental health service when it had concerns for Ms X welfare.
35. In April 2019, Ms X met with her personal advisor to update her pathway plan. Ms X listed areas in which she wanted support.
36. Later that day, Ms X contacted the Council over 50 times. The Council contacted the mental health service and the police with its concerns about her welfare.
37. In response to her behaviour, the Council decided to change Ms X’s allocated personal advisor. Two days later, the newly allocated personal advisor met with Ms X.
38. Ms X submitted a complaint about the change in her personal advisor and the restrictions on her contact.
39. The Council responded to her complaint at stage 1 later that month. It did not uphold her complaints. It said the Council had decided to further restrict her contact and change her personal advisor because she had not kept to the behaviour agreement.
40. The personal advisor encouraged her to keep to the contact restrictions. They provided advice and support about her housing. The records show Ms X would often ring but refuse to say what her support needs were.
41. At the end of April, the Council held a multi-agency meeting. It decided Ms X’s level of contact continued to be unreasonable and excessive, which was disrupting Council business and affecting the health and wellbeing of staff. It decided to place further restrictions on her contact.
42. The police visited Ms X at home. They told her to stop contacting the Council excessively and told her of the revised contact restrictions.
43. In May 2019, the Council visited Ms X to confirm the increased restrictions on her contact. Despite this, Ms X continued to make multiple daily calls to the Council throughout May. When the content of Ms X’s communications raised concerns, the Council liaised with the police and other agencies to ensure her welfare. Ms X said she had not been provided with a copy of her pathway plan updated in April. She asked the Council to provide her with this.
44. The Council wrote to Ms X. It said her pathway plan was being updated and her personal advisor would give it to her once completed. It said the Council had clearly set out why contact restrictions were in place. It said if she continued to breach the contact arrangements, the Council would reduce her contact further to the statutory minimum of once every eight weeks. It urged her to comply with the arrangements and said it would not correspond further on the matter. It signposted her to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
45. Ms X continued to make multiple frequent calls to the Council over the next 2 weeks. She continued to ask for a copy of her updated pathway plan.
46. Later in May, the Council reviewed the contact restrictions. It decided Ms X had continued to breach the contract restrictions. It placed further restrictions on her contact. It visited Ms X and gave her a letter setting out the increased restrictions and the reasons for these.
47. Ms X contacted the Council asking for confirmation of her next meeting with her personal advisor. Her personal advisor replied by email to say her next face to face meeting was the beginning of June.
48. At the end of May, Ms X contacted the Council again. She said she had a meeting scheduled that day and wanted to confirm the time. The Council told her it had cancelled the meeting, as she had told her advisor she could not attend. Ms X says she did not tell her advisor this and was upset the Council had cancelled the meeting. Ms X made over 60 calls to the Council and sent multiple emails throughout the day.
49. She told the Council it was not providing her with enough support and wrote an email listing the things she wanted help with. She told the Council she could not attend the planned face to face meeting at the beginning of June. The Council told Ms X it would still keep the meeting.
50. A senior manager rang Ms X. They asked her to tell them what support she needed. Ms X complained about the contact restrictions. She said the Council had not yet provided her with her updated pathway plan. She said her advisor was refusing to accompany her to an appointment. The manager discussed her concerns with her and said he would write to her after he had found out more information.
51. In June 2019, the senior manager wrote to Ms X. They said the contact restrictions were in place due to her continued and excessive contact. The meeting at the end of May had been cancelled as she had told the Council she could not attend. They said she had shown she was capable of speaking confidently and expressing her views, and because of this, it was not the role of the personal advisor to accompany her to her appointment. They agreed to send her a copy of her pathway plan.
52. Ms X’s personal advisor attended for the meeting with Ms X. Ms X did not attend.
53. The Council emailed Ms X a copy of her updated pathway plan.
54. Later that month, Miss X attended Council offices twice and refused to leave. The Council had to call the Police. She continued to make multiple calls and send emails to Council officers.
55. In July 2019, the Council decided Ms X continued to breach the behaviour contract. It placed further restrictions on her contact and decided to no longer allocate her a specific worker. It said if she did not keep to this contract, it would apply to the courts for an injunction against her.
56. The Council said it would continue to meet its legal obligations to her. It provided a written schedule for face to face contact every two months and a phone call in the month in between.
57. It directed her to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied and Ms X brought her complaints to us. She told us her personal advisor had refused to accompany her to an appointment in June 2019, and the Council had not fulfilled its duty to support her as it had signposted her to other services rather than providing direct support.

Ms X’s complaint from September 2018

58. In September 2018, Ms X complained to the Council about issues relating to her time in the Council’s care over several years.
59. In February 2019, the Council responded to her complaint. It apologised for the delay in providing a response. Ms X was unhappy with the response and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She complained about the delay in providing the complaint response.
60. The Council agreed to progress her complaint and appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) to investigate the complaint and an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation. During February and March 2019, the IO and the IP worked with Ms X to agree her statement of complaint. They agreed to include several issues not raised at stage 1, including the delay in providing the complaint response. Ms X agreed the statement of complaint at the end of March 2019. The Council said it would respond to her complaint within 25 working days.
61. In April 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X. It said due to the size of the investigation, it was going to take longer than 25 days to provide its response. It gave Ms X a new deadline of 2 July 2019.
62. On 2 July 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X to say there would be a delay, and it would respond to her by 15th July 2019.
63. The evidence shows the Council had concerns about continuing the investigation and sharing the stage 2 investigation report. It decided her behaviour was threatening the safety and welfare of staff and that continuing the investigation could risk escalating her behaviour and put its officers and others at risk. It also decided that sharing the report could negatively affect Ms X’s health and wellbeing. It decided to close Ms X’s complaint with immediate effect.
64. On 31 July 2019, the Council wrote to her again. It said it did not believe she would accept the findings of the investigating officer and there was also concern over the potential effect of any negative finding on her wellbeing. Because of this, it had decided to discontinue the investigation into her complaint with immediate effect. It directed her to the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with this decision, and Ms X brought her complaint to us.
65. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it acknowledged that the decision to stop investigating the complaint could deny Ms X any remedy recommended in the stage 2 report and could also be a missed opportunity for the Council to address any recommendations to improve its services. It said it accepted this and was working with Ms X to ensure she received everything she was entitled to. It provided evidence to us that it had acted on the service improvement recommendations identified in the report.

Analysis

Advice and support provided to Ms X

66. Councils have a duty to keep in touch with carer leavers and must visit them at least once every two months. Between September 2018 and Summer 2019, despite the restrictions placed on her contact, Ms X had regular phone and email contact with the Council. The evidence shows it provided her with information, advice and support. The Council also met its statutory duty for face to face contact by either meeting with her or arranging dates and times to meet with her. Ms X did not always attend, but this is not Council fault.
67. As part of its support, the Council provided her with information about other Council services and external agencies. Ms X says signposting her to other services is not providing support, but part of the Council’s role with care leavers is to encourage and promote independence. It considered her requests for support appropriately and provided her with advice and service information to access support for her needs. Whether to contact these services and access this support was Ms X’s decision to make. Signposting Ms X to appropriate agencies and services as part of its advice and support was not fault.
68. In June 2019, the Council appropriately considered Ms X’s request that her personal advisor accompany her to an appointment. It decided it would not agree to the request but discussed the reasons for this with her and wrote to her setting out these reasons. There was no fault in how the Council considered her request so I cannot say there was fault in the decision reached.
69. In response to her behaviour and concerns for safety and wellbeing of staff, the Council has now reduced its support to her to a face to face contact every two months and a phone call every other month. This meets its statutory duties. The Council made its decisions based on the circumstances and has taken the action it considers necessary to protect the safety and wellbeing of its staff. This is not fault.

The restrictions on Ms X’s contact

70. The Council acted appropriately by meeting with Ms X in February 2019 to discuss its concerns about her behaviour. It told her of possible consequences if she did not change her behaviour. Ms X did not change her behaviour, so the Council imposed increasing restrictions. It reviewed the behaviour contract regularly. Each time it increased the restrictions, it told her of its reasons for this and the possibility of further restrictions if she did not change her behaviour. The Council made its decisions to restrict her contact in line with its policy and the statutory guidance and is not at fault.

Delay in providing a copy of the pathway plan

71. There was a two-month delay between April and June 2019 in providing her with a copy of her updated pathway plan. The Council says the delay was because she asked the Council not to post documents to her address or to send her emails. There is evidence she asked the Council not to use her postal address, but I have seen no evidence Ms X told the Council not to email her. There are multiple email communications between Ms X and the Council in April and May, and Ms X requested a copy of this document on several occasions. The Council should have provided her with a copy sooner. This is fault. However, the Council was still providing Ms X with support during this time. This fault did not cause Ms X a significant injustice.

The Council’s response to Ms X’s September 2018 complaint

72. After Ms X complained in September 2018, the Council did not provide its stage 1 response until February 2019. The law says complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. There was a delay of more than three months in providing its response. This is fault and the delay caused Ms X frustration. However, the Council has already apologised to her for the delay in its complaint response. This is an appropriate remedy.
73. After accepting her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, the Council worked with Ms X to agree her statement of complaint. It gave her a complaint response date, which it then amended when it considered it needed the full 65-day timescale set out in the children’s statutory complaints procedure. It acted appropriately by following the statutory procedure and keeping her informed.
74. In July 2019, the Council considered Ms X’s behaviour and the risks posed to its officers. It decided to discontinue the investigation into her complaint with immediate effect. The Council considered the risks appropriately and followed the statutory guidance in making this decision. As there was no fault in how the Council made the decision, I cannot say there was fault in the decision reached.
75. Although it took this decision, it has provided evidence it is ensuring Ms X receives all she is entitled to as a care leaver and that it has taken the learning from the complaint. These are appropriate actions based on the circumstances.

Agreed action

76. Within one month of the final decision the Council will remind its officers of the need to provide care leavers with a copy of their updated pathway plan as soon as possible after a review. It should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault, but the Council has already remedied the injustice caused. I have made a recommendation for the Council to improve its procedures.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman