Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate language interpretation, delayed in responding to her concerns about her children’s care whilst they were in foster care, and delayed in providing records of contact sessions and review meetings. This meant she was not able to fully participate in the process and was worried about her children’s care. The Council was at fault. It will pay Mrs X £1,000 to remedy the injustice caused. It has made some changes to its processes and will consider further improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
1. repeatedly failed to provide appropriate language interpretation;
2. delayed responding to her concerns about her children’s care whilst they were in foster care; and
3. did not communicate appropriately with her about review meetings.
2. The lack of appropriate interpretation and communication meant Mrs X could not participate properly in the process. The failure to respond to her concerns about the level of care for her children caused avoidable 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. Mrs X complains about events from December 2017. Her representative, Ms R, explained that she and Mrs X do not share a common first language. It was difficult for Mrs X to explain her concerns in detail and in a way Ms R could understand when both were using a second language. This led to some delays in pursuing the complaint both with the Council and to us. I have exercised discretion to investigate events from late December 2017 because I am satisfied there were good reasons for the delay in complaining to us and there was sufficient evidence available to make a robust decision about what happened.
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. In this case the Council was taking action in court. I cannot consider whether the Council followed the correct protocols in relation to the court case nor whether it communicated appropriately with Mrs X’s solicitor. It was open to her solicitor to challenge the Council if it had not provided all the information it should have in relation to the court case.
9. 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

10. I considered:
• the information Ms R and the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies.
11. Mrs R and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

12. Councils have duties under the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries where they consider a child is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm. As a result of those enquiries it may apply to the court for an order allowing it to take the child into care. The child will usually be cared for by foster carers until they can be returned to their parents’ care or other decisions are made about their future.
13. A child cared for by the council is called a “looked after child” (LAC). The council should appoint an independent reviewing officer (IRO), whose role is to oversee the council’s role as a corporate parent and ensure it is meeting the child’s needs. This is usually done through LAC review meetings.
14. Councils should send the child’s parent(s) a copy of reports prepared for the LAC review meeting and should sent them a copy of the minutes of the meeting. This Council’s policy says it will send consultation documents to parents at least ten working days before the meeting and it will send minutes within 20 working days of the date of the meeting.

Children’s statutory complaints process

15. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

16. Y, Mrs X’s eldest child, reported domestic violence to their school. The school reported this to the Council. The Council made enquiries and applied to the court for an interim care order, which Mrs X did not contest. Mrs X’s three children went to live with foster carers for several months. They returned to the care of both parents in December 2018.

(a) Language interpretation services

17. Mrs X complained the Council repeatedly failed to provide appropriate interpretation services. The Council investigated this complaint in detail at stage 2 of its complaints process. I have not re-investigated this complaint because I am satisfied, based on its stage 2 report, the Council undertook a comprehensive investigation.
18. The stage 2 report shows the Council made an initial assumption that Mrs X could speak a certain language because she had spoken to an interpreter speaking that language in December 2017. The Council did not clarify with Mrs X what language or dialect she spoke. Although a court order in early March 2018 made clear which language was to be used to communicate with Mrs X the Council did not secure an interpreter who could speak that language until early May 2018.
19. The Council accepted it was at fault and agreed to make changes to its processes to avoid the problem occurring again in future. This included:
• asking the service user to confirm the correct language and dialect;
• ensuring a manager would be the central point for enquiries and issues about interpretation services; and
• providing notes in the service users native language for the service user to confirm accuracy.
20. The Council has now developed guidance on the use of interpreters for staff to follow. This also says staff should check the service users understanding in meetings and contact sessions.
21. The Council apologised to Mrs X. I considered whether an apology was sufficient remedy in the circumstances. By early May 2018 when the correct interpretation services were provided there had been two looked after review meetings and a considerable number of contact sessions, as well as the ongoing court case.
22. Further, the stage 2 report shows Council officers repeatedly doubted that Mrs X was not understanding or was being mistranslated by the interpreters used and suggested she was pretending to misunderstand to frustrate the proceedings. The report said there were multiple instances where Mrs X said she did not understand the interpreter. However, officers were “sceptical of a seemingly changing story and account”. As the investigating officer pointed out it would make no sense for Mrs X to do that because “it did not advance her position”. The investigating officer also said it made no sense for the Council to assume Mrs X was attempting to gain an advantage “when the Council failed to provide her with an appropriate interpreter that can speak her language”.
23. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council to consider a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused and it offered to pay her £500.

Findings

24. The failure to arrange for interpretation services in the correct language was fault. This fault caused Mrs X a significant injustice because she did not fully understand what was happening, did not feel the Council listened to her, could not participate properly in LAC review meetings and did not know how her views were being recorded.
25. She also suffered the uncertainty of not knowing whether the failure to provide an appropriate interpreter, and the attitude of officers towards her due to the difficulties this caused, affected the way the case was presented in court and resulted in her children being in care longer than was necessary.
26. In the circumstances, I do not consider the £500 offered is a sufficient remedy because of the injustice I have outlined and the fact this was over a prolonged period of five months.

(b) Concerns about personal care

27. Mrs X raised concerns in February 2018 about her children’s personal care whilst they were in foster care. She said her daughter’s hair needed brushing daily and oil applying. She also said the children’s dry skin was not being appropriately moisturised. The stage 2 report says the Council raised Mrs X’s concerns with the foster carer, following which it spoke to Mrs X’s eldest child, who confirmed the problems were resolved. The Council understood Mrs X would apply cream to the children’s skin during contact if the children agreed.
28. In March 2018 Mrs X complained the children had dirty nails and dry hair and skin. She made further complaints about their hair and skin in May 2018. The stage 2 report says there is no record these concerns were reported to the foster carer.
29. In June 2018 Mrs X complained Y’s teeth were yellowed and had not been cleaned properly. She also said all the children need to apply cream more often.
30. Mrs R said Mrs X set out her concerns about the children’s personal care in the parent consultation forms prior to the July 2018 review meeting. However, she says the independent reviewing officer (IRO) told the meeting she had not read the forms and they were in her in tray somewhere.
31. Mrs R said when the personal care issues were finally raised with the foster carer, the foster carer said she was sensitive to the perfume in the hair oil originally provided and she was leaving some of the personal care tasks to Mrs X to give her some physical contact with the children during contact. Mrs R says if Mrs X had known about the oil when she first raised it some months before she could have provided an alternative. She would also have been less worried about the children’s personal care if she had known the foster carer was deliberately leaving some tasks, such as cutting the children’s nails, to her.
32. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the IRO decided Mrs X could raise her concerns at the review meeting in July, with the support of the interpreter. The stage 2 report says the Council was not concerned about the level of care the foster carer was providing to the children.

Findings

33. The Council did not delay in raising Mrs X’s concerns with the foster carer in February 2018 and it understood the concerns were resolved after speaking to Mrs X’s eldest child. However, there is no record it communicated with Mrs X about this and she continued to raise concerns until July 2018, when the Council finally responded to her.
34. The failure to communicate with Mrs X after she raised concerns was fault. This fault caused Mrs X avoidable distress. In addition, the failure to explain the issue with the oil meant Mrs X did not know she needed to provide an alternative.

(c) Communicating about review meetings

35. Mrs X says she was not told she could bring a friend or advocate with her to the LAC review meetings. The Council says the IRO cannot recall whether this was discussed but when Mrs X did bring a friend she was welcomed into the meeting.
36. Mrs X says she was not invited to the review in March 2018. Mrs R discovered it was happening and told her so she was able to attend. The Council has not provided evidence to show Mrs X was invited to the meeting.
37. Mrs X says she was not provided with minutes for the review meetings or contact sessions until these were provided to her solicitor in June 2018. She understands the delay with the minutes was due to the need to translate them into the language she speaks. However, she says if the Council had checked with her, she could have explained she cannot read that language but if records were provided in English Mrs R would help her to understand them.
38. The Council said minutes were sent to Mrs X after each review meeting but it was not able to provide a letter or email to confirm this. It accepted the minutes for one meeting were sent late.
39. It says the minutes from the first two review meetings and the contact records were later translated and were sent to Mrs X’s solicitor in June 2018. It was not able to confirm the date these were sent nor explain why they were not sent earlier.
40. Mrs X says she was not told what to do if she disagreed with the accuracy of the records sent to her. The stage 2 report indicated she should have raised her concerns with the IRO. However, Mrs R says when she tried to do this in July 2018 the IRO told her Mrs X should contact her solicitor, who would raise any concerns with the Council.

Findings

41. It is not clear what information Mrs X was given about the review meetings and, in particular whether she was told she could bring a friend or advocate to support her. Nor is it clear what information she was given about challenging inaccurate information in minutes of review meetings.
42. The Council has not demonstrated it invited her to the review meeting in March 2018. However, Mrs X did not suffer an injustice because she did find out about the meeting and was able to attend.
43. The Council says it did send minutes after each review meeting and has told me the dates its system records they were sent but it cannot provide a cover letter or email and Mrs X says she did not receive them.
44. The Council was not able to explain why contact records were not sent to the solicitor until June 2018.
45. The delay caused by translating minutes into another language could have been avoided by clarifying at the outset the language Mrs X spoke and the language she could read or write. This is a further consequence of the fault identified in complaint (a) above.
46. On balance, I am not satisfied the Council gave Mrs X adequate information about the review meetings nor that it sent her minutes within appropriate timescales. It sent minutes translated into a language she could not read. It did not provide contact records until June 2018. This was fault. This fault increased Mrs X’s feeling of not being able to fully participate in the process.

Complaints handling

47. The Council did not use the children’s statutory complaints process because it says the majority of the complaint was about interpretation services and communication, both of which “are covered by Council-wide policies” and “not restricted to Children and Families”.
48. In my view, the Council should have used the statutory process because the complaint was about a children’s social care case, which is covered by the statutory process. The failure to use the correct process was fault.
49. This fault caused no injustice because the complaint was investigated by an independent person and a stage 2 report was issued in the same way a report would be prepared under the statutory process. I have not found fault with the way the complaint was investigated. Mrs X did not have the right to a stage 3 panel but she did not suffer an injustice as a result because my investigation has addressed her outstanding concerns.

Agreed action

50. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for its failure to arrange appropriate interpretation services, its failure to communicate appropriately with her when she raised concerns about her children’s personal care, and its delay in sharing records of review meetings and contact sessions; and
• Pay Mrs X £1,000 for the injustice caused by those faults, including the inability to properly participate in the process, not knowing what was recorded about her or her views, and the uncertainty about whether but for those faults her children could have been returned to her care sooner.

This is the maximum payment for distress and uncertainty we would usually recommend according to our guidance on remedies to reflect the significant injustice caused over a prolonged period.

51. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision, review its processes to ensure that:
• it gives service users general information about LAC reviews, including their right to take a friend or advocate to review meetings. It may do this by developing a fact sheet to give to service users;
• it sends service users the minutes of review meetings within the timescales in its policy; and
• it sends service users the records of contact sessions without delay.
52. The Council has already made changes to its processes in relation to the user of interpreters and no further recommendations are appropriate.
53. 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

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I have identified fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman