Summary: Ms X complains of poor care of her daughter while in a children’s home, leaving her daughter at risk. The Council accepted it failed to give Ms X the information it should. It also failed to deal with her complaint about the care through the statutory procedure it must use. This is part of a pattern of faulty complaint handling by the Council in children’s social care cases, which it has agreed to rectify. It will apologise to Ms X for the fault found and immediately start a second stage investigation under the statutory procedure.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains the Council:
1. Refused to give her details of injuries her daughter incurred in a children’s home;
2. Failed to follow the instructions of a court and did not arrange the contact it should have done with her daughter;
3. Failed to send her minutes of meetings about her daughter;
4. Sent her an intimidating email:
5. Allowed her daughter to be assaulted in the children’s home;
6. Failed to tell her that her daughter had been moved to another children’s home.
2. Ms X says this has left her daughter at risk.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaints a), c) and d). I give my reasons for not investigating the other complaints at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
6. 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

7. I read the complaint correspondence between Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X on the telephone. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties, invited their comments and considered those I received.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Ms X’s daughter is a teenager. She lived in a children’s home. Ms X was unhappy with the care her daughter received in the children’s home. The Council decided in 2019 to move her to another children’s home away from its area.

Complaints a) and c): Providing details and minutes as requested

9. When Ms X complained, the Council accepted it had delayed providing information and minutes of meetings. This was fault.

Complaint d): An email Ms X found intimidating

10. Despite my invitation, Ms X has not provided a copy of the email. I am therefore unable to reach any view on this matter.

Fault in the Council’s complaint handling

11. Ms X complained twice to the Council. Her first complaint was complaints a) to d).
12. The complaint was about children’s social care. This is areas that involves a mandatory use of the procedure laid out in Getting the Best from Complaints 2006 under the Children Act 1989. Ms X was complaining on her daughter’s behalf. The only ground on which the Council could have declined to consider her complaint was if it felt she was not a suitable person to represent her daughter. I have seen no evidence it took that view of Ms X. Therefore, the Council should have considered her complaint under the statutory procedure laid out in Getting the Best from Complaints 2006. It did not do so. Instead, it considered the complaint under its corporate procedure. This was fault.
13. The Council also failed to apologise for the matters it upheld. This was further fault.
14. Ms X complained again in response to the Council’s reply to her first complaint. This complaint was a re-iteration of her earlier points, plus complaints e) and f).
15. Regarding the re-iteration, had the Council been using the correct complaints procedure, it could have declined to take the matter further. This is because it had upheld the complaints about information-sharing. However, it had not apologised for the fault it found, so it was unsurprising Ms X was dissatisfied.
16. The two new points of complaint should have been considered as new matters at the first stage of the statutory complaint procedure, though the Council had discretion to consider them directly at the second stage if it wished. That would have meant an independent investigation overseen by a person not employed by the Council. This is important because of the power councils with social care responsibilities have to make decisions affecting children.
17. The Council took neither course. Instead, it issued a response at the second stage of its corporate complaints procedure. This does not involve the same requirement for independence. I find the Council at fault.
18. This forms part of a pattern of recent cases we have seen where the Council has failed to use the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care complaints as laid out in Getting the Best from Complaints 2006. The Council has already accepted a recommendation to revise its practice to comply with statutory guidance.
19. Ms X has not had her complaint on behalf of her daughter properly considered. That is injustice to her.
20. The responses of both parties to the draft decision referred to recent matters that are disputed. Miss X says her daughter has continued to suffer ill-treatment. I have not considered these recent matters as they were not part of the original complaint.

Recommended action

21. The Council will immediately:

• Apologise to Ms X for the fault found in complaints a) and c) and for not dealing with her complaint via the correct procedure; and
• Begin a second stage investigation of complaints e) and f) under the statutory procedure laid out in Getting the Best from Complaints 2006.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have upheld complaints a) and c) and closed the case as the Council has agreed to take the recommended actions.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

23. I have not investigated complaint b). The three sub-points of this complaint concern matters of contact between Ms X and her daughter that have been considered by courts and continue to be so. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate matters that are or have been considered by courts.
24. I have not investigated complaints e) and f). This is because the Council has not considered them properly under the statutory procedure. Ms X is welcome to return to the Ombudsman with these matters if she remains dissatisfied at the end of the statutory complaints process. She should do so promptly, unless there is a good reason to prevent her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman