Northumberland County Council (19 012 899)

Category : Children's care services > Looked after children

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 19 Aug 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr F complains the Council failed to support him and protect him from abuse and bullying by staff and residents whilst he was in care from 1995 to 1999. The Council has accepted there was fault and has already apologised and made a payment to Mr F, remedying the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Mr F complains the Council failed to support him whilst he was in care from 1995 to 1999. In particular that the Council:
      1. Lied and fabricated evidence to court when it sought a secure order in 1996.
      2. Failed to protect him from abuse and bullying by staff and residents at two care homes and failed to take any action or investigate his complaints at the time.
      3. Failed to provide services to help him with his addictions.
      4. Failed to act when his personal belongings were stolen and failed to ensure he had suitable clothing.
      5. Did not offer him suitable placements in 1999, resulting in him leaving care and ending up homeless.
      6. Did not provide social care support when he was admitted to hospital in 1999 following suicide attempts.
      7. Did not properly deal with the complaint he made in 2014.
  2. Mr F says as a result he suffered emotional and psychological harm and was suicidal. Since his time in care he has suffered anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress, requiring mental health services. Mr F wants to ensure children and young people in care in Northumberland today receive a quality standard of care.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated parts b) to g) of Mr F’s complaint. I explain at the end of this statement why I have not investigated part a).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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. 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)
  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)
  5. 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

  1. Although Mr F complains about historic matters, we decided to investigate as he only became aware of the issues he wished to complain about in 2015 and had been pursuing his complaint with the Council until 2019.
  2. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
    • The Children Act 1989 (“the Act”)
    • The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”)
    • Statutory Guidance Getting the best from complaints (“the Guidance”)
  3. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Looked after children

  1. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
  2. The Act allows a court to make a care order placing a child in the Council's care as a "looked after child". The Council then has duties under section 22 of the Act:
    • to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare; and
    • to make such services available for children who are cared for by their own parents as the local authority considers to be reasonable in the child’s case.
  3. All looked after children must have a care plan which the Council must keep under regular review.

Councils duties to care leavers

  1. In 1989 the Act also placed duties on local authorities towards previously looked after children. It said councils should “advise, assist and befriend” care leavers aged 16 to 21, if there was no-one else suitable, with a view to promoting their welfare. Councils could also contribute to a care leaver’s living, and education or training costs.

Statutory children’s social care complaints procedure

  1. 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 Independent Investigator 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 panel to be held.
  2. The Regulations say councils do not need to consider complaints under the statutory procedure if they are made more than one year after the grounds to make the complaint arose. Councils have discretion to extend this time limit if, for example, it is still possible to consider the complaint effectively and efficiently, or it would be unreasonable to expect the complainant to have made the complaint earlier. The Guidance says decisions need to be made on a case by case basis and there should generally be a presumption in favour of accepting the complaint unless there is good reason against it.
  3. If a council has investigated something under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

  1. The complaint covers a four-year period so it is not possible for me to set out everything which happened in this statement. Nor is it necessary, as the independent investigation has a detailed chronology and analysis of Mr F’s concerns. I have therefore summarised the key events, Mr F’s complaints, the independent person’s findings and the Council’s response below.

1995 to 1997

  1. Mr F went into the care of the local authority in 1995 aged 13. He was initially placed with foster carers, but due to his absconding the Council placed him in a residential unit in January 1996. Over the next 18 months there was a pattern of Mr F absconding and being moved between five residential units, one of which was a secure unit.
  2. During this time Mr F reported being bullied and assaulted by other residents and members of staff, but there is little evidence of action being taken to deal with this. The records show staff were concerned that Mr F was using drugs, being found in unsafe locations when he absconded, and that they considered he was at risk of child sexual exploitation. There is evidence a counsellor met with Mr F but he did not engage and he was not attending school. He had a skin condition which required medical treatment and his clothes went missing several times. Mr F says they were stolen.
  3. The Council discharged Mr F from its care in July 1997, aged 15, as he returned to live with family members.

1998 to 1999

  1. In August 1998, aged 16, Mr F was arrested and remanded into local authority care. He was placed with an emergency foster carer (Mr X) and allocated a youth offending team worker. Six weeks later the Council placed Mr F with a different foster carer. Mr F considered this placement was not suitable and absconded.
  2. Mr F presented to another council as homeless in November 1998. There are no further records until April 1999, when Mr F was admitted to hospital following a suicide attempt. The NHS Trust’s discharge plan says Mr F required appropriate accommodation and help to develop supportive social structures. There are no records of any action by social care. Mr F went into hospital again in May 1999 following a further suicide attempt. He discharged himself and there are no records of any further support being provided by social care.

Mr F’s complaint

  1. In 2014, following a period of psychotherapy, Mr F approached the Council with questions and concerns about his time in care. The Council provided Mr F with his children’s social care case records in 2015 and after seeing these Mr F complained. In September 2016, the Council decided not to follow the statutory complaints procedure, as the complaint was about historic events. Instead it commissioned an independent person to review Mr F’s case and answer his questions. This process was completed in July 2019.
  2. The Council met Mr F in August 2019 to discuss the review’s findings. It wrote to him in September 2019, accepting the findings and recommendations. The Council apologised and paid him £4,500 to acknowledge the injustice caused. It also paid him £500 for the delay in dealing with his complaint.
  3. Mr F asked for the complaint to be considered by a stage 3 review panel. He said he still had questions about the lack of support in 1999, which had not been investigated by the independent person. The Council said a stage 3 review panel could not consider new issues and referred Mr F to the Ombudsman in October 2019. Mr F said he did not feel the Council had answered all his questions. The length of our investigation was affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr F’s complaints and the independent investigation’s findings

    • The Council failed to protect him from abuse and bullying by staff and residents at two care homes and failed to take any action or investigate his complaints at the time.
  1. Mr F says he was physically and emotionally abused by two care home staff, who used inappropriate restraint and sanctions. He reported incidents at the time but no action was taken. Mr F also complained the Council had not protected him from bullying and assault by other residents and took no action when he was assaulted and robbed whilst living with the foster carer Mr X. In contrast, he had been reported to the police following a minor scuffle with a social worker.
  2. The independent reviewer upheld this complaint. She found staff had concerns about some colleagues’ behaviour but there was no evidence action was taken and incidents were not properly investigated. In 2015 the police investigated an alleged assault of Mr F by one care worker in 1996 but there was insufficient evidence so no further action was taken. Bullying and assaults of Mr F by other residents were recorded but the reviewer found insufficient action had been taken to protect Mr F. There were no records of Mr F being robbed or assaulted whilst with Mr X, although it would have been a police matter.
  3. The Council accepted the staff’s behaviour was unacceptable and had warranted disciplinary action. It also acknowledged Mr F had been left exposed to a risk of harm from other residents. The Council apologised and paid Mr F £1,500 to acknowledge the distress caused.
    • Social workers constantly pressured him to discuss his issues and he was sanctioned if he didn’t engage
  4. The reviewer noted the Act required social workers to regularly review looked after children and to work with Mr F on a care plan to deal with his drug misuse, absconding and wellbeing. Although Mr F had not wished to engage in this work, and had been sanctioned as a result, the Council had had a duty to work with him, so the complaint was not upheld.
    • Did not offer him suitable placements in 1998, resulting in him leaving care and ending up homeless.
  5. Mr F was concerned he had not been allowed to stay with Mr X in September 1998; he had felt settled in that placement. Mr F also complained the Council had not allocated him an after-care worker once he had left care.
  6. The review found Mr X had been an emergency foster carer and had therefore been unable to care for Mr F for the long term so a new foster placement had been found. It said the Council had had no legal duty to support Mr F after the age of 16 once he had left care.
  7. In response the Council noted it had had no statutory duty to support care leavers but considered it could have done more to assist Mr F at the time. He had been allocated a youth offending worker, but not a social worker, and had lost out on education and support. It apologised and paid him £3,000.
    • Mr F complained there was a lack of records of his time in care, in particular with regards to the assaults, bullying and robbery.
  8. The independent reviewer had found a lack of records but did not uphold Mr F’s complaints as records did not have to be kept after twenty years.
    • The Council failed to provide services to help him with his addictions, failed to act when his personal belongings were stolen and failed to ensure he had suitable clothing.
  9. The independent investigation did not uphold these complaints. It found the Council had attempted to provide support to Mr F for his addiction through counselling and social work. Although the records showed Mr F’s clothes had gone missing, they also showed new clothes were bought and there were no records of them being stolen.

My findings

  1. If a council has investigated something under the children’s social care complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would not re-investigate the complaint unless we consider the independent investigation was flawed. I have therefore firstly considered whether there was any fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr F’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The Regulations give councils discretion to deal with historic complaints under the statutory procedure. The Council decided not to do so in September 2016. It was entitled to make this decision and had rational reasons for doing so, given the length of time that had passed. I therefore do not find it was fault to not follow the statutory process.
  2. Instead the Council appointed an independent person to review Mr F’s case records and answer his questions about what happened while he was in care.
  3. The reviewer had had no previous involvement with the matter. She agreed a statement of complaint with Mr F. The review took account of evidence from a range of sources, including former staff members, and addressed each of the complaints in detail. The report shows the reviewer weighed the evidence and drew objective conclusions from it. The report is comprehensive and makes relevant recommendations. There is no evidence of fault in the review.
  4. However, there was significant delay. When Mr F first approached the Council in 2014 it was agreed the Council would provide him with his children’s services case records. This was done by July 2015. The Council then asked an independent person experienced in children's social care to go through Mr F’s records with him and to produce a list of any issues he wanted the Council to respond to. This task does not appear to have been completed, which I consider to be fault. In June 2016 Mr F told the Council he would produce a list of concerns himself. He did so in September 2016.
  5. The independent reviewer was appointed but was unable to meet Mr F until February 2017 due to his ill-health. The draft of the review was completed in November 2018. The Council has sent evidence of the attempts the reviewer had been making to find historic records and interview staff during this time. I accept this was a complex case and it was difficult to trace the records. But I find it was fault for this process to take 21 months. The Ombudsman’s guidance on running a complaint system says complaints should be dealt with in twelve weeks. Given the historic nature of the complaint and the need to review old records, I consider the Council should have supported the reviewer to reach a draft after six months.
  6. It took until March 2019 to meet Mr F to discuss the draft. I do not find fault here, as this was due to Mr F’s availability. However, the reviewer was unavailable for the March 2019 meeting and a further meeting was therefore required. This did not take place until 31 May 2019. This further delay was fault, as I can see no good reason why the meeting could not have been held sooner.
  7. At the May 2019 meeting it was agreed to make a final attempt to locate a former officer. The officer was then interviewed and the reviewer’s final report was issued in July 2019.
  8. Altogether there was a delay of almost two and a half years: about a year from July 2015 to September 2016; about 15 months from February 2017 to November 2018; and of about two months from March 2019 to May 2019.
  9. This delay caused time and trouble to Mr F. The Council has acknowledged this and paid him £500. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which says payments to acknowledge time and trouble would not normally be greater than £300. I am therefore satisfied that the payment made by the Council is a proportionate and sufficient remedy for Mr F’s time and trouble.

Mr F’s complaints

  1. Although I have found delay, I have found no fault in the review itself. I have therefore not re-investigated the whole matter. Instead I have looked at whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the review. I have also considered whether there was any fault or injustice that has not been identified or remedied.
  2. The reviewer did not uphold the complaints about pressure to engage in counselling, lack of support whilst Mr F was in care and a lack of records. I agree with these findings and have seen no evidence of fault. The Council was required to work with Mr F, and there is evidence that attempts were made to provide him with support. It also purchased new clothes when necessary. There was a lack of records, but I accept that they may have gone missing with the passage of time and there was no requirement for them to be kept.
  3. The Council has accepted there was fault in the way it responded at the time to Mr F’s reports of being assaulted and bullied. The assaults should have been reported to the police and Mr F should not have been placed for a second time at the unit where they occurred. Action should have been taken to protect Mr F from bullying.
  4. These faults have caused significant, ongoing injustice to Mr F. Whilst I cannot say that they were the only cause of his suicidal thoughts, it is clear Mr F’s experience in care caused him significant distress and he has had to seek support from mental health services. The Council’s lack of action also caused Mr F harm as he was subjected to further bullying and assaults.
  5. The Council has apologised and paid Mr F £1,500 to recognise that distress. I have carefully considered whether this is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.
  6. Where a complainant claims injury or harm to health as the main injustice, this is usually a matter for the courts to decide. But sometimes it is appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the fault has included harm, or risk of harm. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says a remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified. It also says where fault by a council exposed a complainant to harm, a remedy payment of up to £1,500 may be recommended to acknowledge this. I have taken into account the severity of the harm, the length of time involved and Mr F’s vulnerability as a looked after child. My view is that the amount is a sufficient and proportionate remedy, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
  7. The Council has also accepted it could have done more to support Mr F after he left care in 1998. It says it had no legal duty to provide support once he was aged 16 and had left care, but the Act said councils should “advise, assist and befriend” care leavers to promote their welfare, and had powers to contribute to a care leaver’s living, and education or training costs. I have seen no evidence the Council provided this assistance in 1998.
  8. Mr F also complained about a lack of support by the Council after he discharged himself from hospital following his suicide attempts in 1999. This was not part of the independent review and the Council said it could therefore not be considered by a stage 3 panel. There was no fault in this decision.
  9. Mr F says he had been allocated an after-care worker, who was one of the care workers he had previously had problems with. As a care leaver the Council had a duty to provide assistance but I have seen no evidence of any council support provided from November 1998 to July 1999. As the Council cannot evidence it was provided, I find there was fault.
  10. This caused injustice to Mr F as he was left without social care support at the age of 16 after being suicidal. He has also been left with unanswered questions as there is a lack of records from this time.
  11. The Council has already apologised and paid Mr F £3,000. I am satisfied this is a proportionate remedy in line with our guidance on remedying significant distress caused by fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault causing injustice. I am satisfied the Council has taken action to remedy that injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. Mr F complains that the social worker fabricated evidence that he was a victim of child sexual exploitation to obtain a secure order in 1996. I have not investigated this complaint because we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court, including the evidence provided to a court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings