Summary: Ms C complains her child has not received satisfactory care since they became looked after by the Council. We do not find grounds to agree this is the case or to criticise the Council for imposing limits on Ms C’s contacts with it. But we do note the Council has failed to update Ms C as promised about her child’s progress in care. This has caused Ms C injustice as she has not received information it has promised. The Council has accepted these findings. It has agreed to apologise and take steps to ensure better communications with Ms C in the future.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Ms C’. She complains the Council is failing to ensure her child, ‘D’, receives satisfactory care. D is a looked after child who lives in a care setting arranged by the Council.
2. Ms C says that at the care setting D has suffered bullying from other children and staff. Ms C says D has been denied access to outside help including contact with her, the police and clinicians. Ms C says D has been locked in their room and denied access to their mobile phone. She says D has also been denied food.
3. Ms C says these matters cause her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Ms C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided.
• Information provided by the Council in reply to my written enquiries.
• Comments made by Ms C and the Council in response to a draft decision statement where I set out my proposed findings.

8. 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

Background to the complaint

9. D is the subject of a care order made by the family court. D is looked after by the Council and it provides them with accommodation, through a third party organisation, outside the Council’s area. Ms C can have monthly contact visits with D.
10. I have noted D is one of two children of Ms C’s who are looked after. Some of the correspondence I mention below refers to both children. However, in her complaint to this office Ms C only expressed concerns about D’s welfare, so my investigation has focused on this.
11. It is evident from Ms C’s communications with this office and the Council she considers she is the victim of a miscarriage of justice from the family court. She does not believe either of her children should be looked after by the Council and they should instead be in her care.
12. The Council says that following its involvement in her children’s care Ms C has sent it a high volume of complaints. It considers these vexatious or unreasonably persistent in nature. It considers Ms C’s complaints repetitive and groundless. It says she has contacted multiple officers and placed unreasonable demands on their time. She has sometimes made threats and used abusive language.
13. Consequently, since November 2018 the Council has imposed limits on Ms C’s contacts with it. It has decided not to reply or acknowledge expressions of dissatisfaction from Ms C it would otherwise consider complaints. So, when we gave it the opportunity to respond to Ms C’s complaint summarised at paragraph 2 the Council declined. It said that it considered the complaint made to this office a restatement of previous complaints made by Ms C which it had answered. It referred us to the limits on Ms C’s contacts it imposed from November 2018.
14. In support of its comments and actions, the Council provided me with a representative sample of Ms C’s correspondence between May and November 2018. This consisted of 15 separate contacts making similar allegations to those made in Ms C’s complaint to the Ombudsman. Although in those contacts Ms C also raises matters not mentioned in her correspondence to this office. The contacts refer to the circumstances where D became a looked after child; the care proceedings through Court; D’s circumstances once they became looked after by the Council and Ms C’s ongoing contacts with social workers.
15. I noted that before sending Ms C its letter of November 2018, the Council had also sent her replies to her correspondence in June, August and October 2018. These engaged with some of the substance of Ms C’s contacts. I summarise the responses given to Ms C as follows:

• That decisions about D’s future care rested with the Courts. That Ms C should engage with her legal representatives and assessments ordered by the Courts that would inform those decisions.
• That where Ms C disputed the content of social work reports she should raise this with her legal representatives as this would be relevant to the Court proceedings.
• That D disagreed with statements made by Ms C about incidents and behaviours Ms C reported taking place while they were living in a care setting arranged by the Council.
• That D had a Guardian as part of the Court process who had no concerns about their care or care setting.
• That Ms C had declined the opportunity to meet with an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who would chair reviews of D’s care while they remained a looked after child.

16. I noted the letters of June and October 2018 asked Ms C to indicate if she wanted to escalate her complaints through the Council’s complaint procedure.
17. When the Council wrote to Ms C in November 2018, it said that over the next twelve months she would receive four weekly updates on D’s welfare. She would also receive the minutes of looked after child (LAC) reviews held to review D’s progress. By this point, the Council had barred Ms C from attending D’s LAC reviews because of her behaviour. The Council said it would renew its decision on limiting Ms C’s contacts with it, after 12 months.
18. I asked the Council to demonstrate how it had kept in touch with Ms C to update her on D’s welfare. It said in the 12 months after its letter of November 2018 it wrote to Ms C on seven occasions. But it stopped sending Ms C updates in January 2020 as by then she had “regular unauthorised contact” with D. It believed Ms C was therefore up to date with D’s progress. It also said Ms C contacted D by telephone. The Council did not send Ms C the minutes of any of the LAC reviews.
19. In June 2020 the Council reviewed whether it still considered Ms C vexatious. It decided not to lift limits on her contacts. It said this was because Ms C continued to make unreasonable demands on its time through multiple contacts. It gave her examples of this. The Council told Ms C it would review this decision again in 12 months’ time. It also promised again to provide Ms C with “a written update on [D] every four weeks”. It said she would continue to have supervised contact with D monthly. The Council also said it would send Ms C the minutes of D’s LAC reviews, both those held after November 2018 and in the future.
20. The Council has sent me comments from the IRO responsible for chairing D’s LAC reviews. Their comments support the view that Ms C makes frequent repetitive contacts with multiple agencies about D’s case.

My findings

21. I cannot take a view on Ms C’s underlying grievance that has led to D becoming a looked after child. D’s care arrangements and Ms C’s contacts with D are matters for the Courts. But I recognise those decision have clearly caused Ms C distress.
22. However, there are two issues raised by this complaint which I can consider. One is the substance of Ms C’s complaints about D’s care arranged for by the Council. The other is the limits imposed on her contacts with the Council as a direct consequence of Ms C’s persistence in making complaints about this and other matters related to D’s journey through the care system. I will address these in turn.

The Council’s replies to complaints about D’s welfare

23. I do not find fault in the substance of the replies given to Ms C’s complaints in 2018. I find the replies short on detail when it comes to responding to points Ms C made about D’s care setting. However, they made the point that neither D nor his Guardian had raised concerns about his care setting. As D was living there when the Court made its care order, I assume that had it considered the setting inappropriate it would have made this clear.
24. I have also considered minutes of the LAC reviews sent to me by the Council. They do not identify any problems with D’s care setting along the lines Ms C suggests. D is clearly not prevented from having contact with Ms C. There is nothing which supports any other of Ms C’s statements alleging bullying, the withholding of food or a mobile phone from D or that D has been locked in their room.

The limits on Ms C’s contacts with the Council

25. While I recognise Ms C’s distress that her children are now looked after, that distress cannot justify unreasonable behaviour. On balance, I am satisfied the Council can justify imposing some limits on Ms C’s communications. By Autumn 2018 Ms C had repeatedly contacted the Council about D’s case. Her communications were repetitive. They also displayed a level of hostility towards the Council and individual social workers. The Council had also made some attempt to engage with Ms C’s complaints, sending her the communications I referred to earlier in June, August and October 2018.
26. I consider the Council’s letter of November 2018 could have made a greater attempt to summarise the substance of Ms C’s complaints as well how Ms C communicated. The letter said the Council would no longer respond to complaints about the “matters described”, but what it described was Ms C’s methods of communication with the Council, not the substance of those communications. However, that is not enough for me to find fault with the letter. Because I do not consider a better worded letter would have proposed a different outcome. The Council would still have imposed limits on Ms C because of her methods of communications with it. I am satisfied these have been unreasonably persistent as it suggests.
27. However, where the Council is at fault is in not keeping its word further to the letter it sent in November 2018. It failed to provide Ms C with monthly updates in respect of D as promised. It also failed to send the minutes of LAC reviews as promised. This will have caused injustice to Ms C in the form of not receiving information about D which she may want and to which the Council accepts she is entitled.
28. I find this injustice partially offset by the more infrequent communications the Council has still sent to Ms C along with her formal contact and the unauthorised or informal communications she has also had with D. But I consider there may still be value in Ms C receiving the Council’s perspective on D’s progress as a looked after child. I welcome that in June 2020 the Council committed once more to providing monthly updates and agreed to send the LAC review minutes. But I make further recommendations below designed to ensure it keeps to its commitment. In doing so I have also considered the position of Ms C’s other child. Because it appears the Council intended its commitments to provide updates and LAC minutes to Ms C to apply to both children.
29. I do not criticise the Council for reinstating the limits on Ms C’s contacts in June 2020. I find its comments and those of D’s IRO persuasive in demonstrating that Ms C continues to make unreasonable demands on the Council with her communications. I find the letter clear in setting out what the Council finds unreasonable so Ms C can take steps to change her behaviour.
30. When it comes to future contact from Ms C, if she raises the matters summarised in paragraph 2, then these should not be subject to any further investigation. But if Ms C raises any new concerns the Council should consider those on their merits. It should consider if they engage with either the statutory complaints procedure for complaints against Children’s Services or its corporate complaints procedure. If it does not consider a complaint engages either of these procedures it should say why. The Council will therefore need to continue to read Ms C’s communications, but only need reply if they raise any new matters. I would urge Ms C to take note of this and consider limiting her communications so she can expect a favourable review of the limits on her contacts when they are next reviewed.
31. This leaves me finally to comment that the Council should ensure it has timetabled another review of the limits of Ms C’s communications. It was further fault for the Council not to have reviewed its earlier decision by November 2019. I do not consider the Council would have reached a different decision had it reviewed the limits on communications sooner. However, I consider Ms C would still have benefitted from receiving this clearer letter sooner, which sets out the reasons why the Council considers her contacts unreasonable. I consider the June 2020 letter gives Ms C an opportunity to act on the Council’s advice and it is reasonable therefore to bring forward an earlier review of the limits on her contact. I also consider this decision will give Ms C chance to reflect on how she communicates with the Council.

Agreed action

32. In paragraph 27 above I have identified where fault from the Council has caused an injustice to Ms C. The Council has agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will remedy that injustice by:

• Providing Ms C with a written apology accepting the findings of this investigation and sending her copies of all LAC review minutes in respect of her children post-dating November 2018 subject to any necessary redactions.
• Scheduling a review of the limits of the contacts Ms C can have with the Council to complete no later than February 2021.

33. The Council has also committed to ensuring that it will write to Ms C with an update on both children every four weeks as promised. For the first three updates it will copy these to this office. We will then consider reviewing the need to be copied further updates dependent on the Council’s compliance with this recommendation. It has also agreed to provide copies of the minutes of any further LAC reviews which are held every six months.

Back to top

Final decision

34. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms C. The Council has agreed actions that I am satisfied will remedy her injustice. I can therefore complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman