Summary: Mrs Y’s son, Z, is a Looked after Child and accommodated by the Council under a care order. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to keep her informed about her son, Z’s progress at school, provide a clear contact schedule and explain what happened to some of Z’s belongings that had gone missing. We find the Council at fault and it delayed in sending a complaint response. We find this caused Mrs Y distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Mrs Y, make her a payment and make several service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mrs Y, complains that the Council:
1. failed to keep her informed about her child, Z’s progress at school. Z is a Looked after Child. Mrs Y says the Council specifically failed to let her know what type of school Z currently attends or if he attends full-time;
2. failed to make sure Z attends his medical appointments;
3. failed to explain what happened to Z’s belongings that had gone missing, failed to take action to get them back and failed to reimburse her for the belongings that had been permanently lost;
4. failed to provide her with sufficient notice of contact sessions with Z and has never provided a contact schedule between her and Z; and,
5. incorrectly accused her of recording a meeting. She says the Council’s Independent Reviewing Officer wrongly accused Mrs Y of recording the meeting. Mrs Y said she was not recording the meeting, but was going into her bag to look for a notepad and notes.
2. The above points were considered by the Council under the statutory complaints process. It separately accepted a complaint from Mrs Y that the Council:
1. failed to change her son’s allocated social worker.
3. Mrs Y says the issues complained of have had a significant emotional impact on her. She says she finds it difficult to trust the Council.
4. Mrs Y says that she has not been reimbursed by the Council for costly items that she bought Z. She says these items went missing when Z moved placements.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. Mrs Y complains about Council actions dating back to summer 2017. The final section of this decision explains why I have investigated matters from May 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)
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 and documents provided by Mrs Y and the Council. I spoke to Mrs Y about her complaint.
11. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
12. 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

What should have happened

Looked after Children

13. A Looked after Child (LAC) is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a council. The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order. The child becomes looked after when the council has accommodated them for a continuous period of longer than 24 hours. (Children Act 1989, section 20)
14. Parents keep their parental responsibility even when a child is accommodated under a care order. They have a right to be told and consulted about all decisions, usually as part of a looked after child review.
15. In the case of Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551, the Court said:

“The fact that a local authority has parental responsibility for children pursuant to section 33(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989 does not entitle it to take decisions about those children without reference to, or over the heads of, the children's parents. A local authority, even if clothed with the authority of a care order, is not entitled to make significant changes in the care plan, or to change the arrangements under which the children are living … without properly involving the parents in the decision-making process and without giving the parents a proper opportunity to make their case before a decision is made. After all, the fact that the local authority also has parental responsibility does not deprive the parents of their parental responsibility”

Education, Health and Care Plans

16. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education, or name a different school. Only the tribunal can do this.
17. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
18. There is also overlap with looked after children plans and reviews. Services should try and co-ordinate reviews where possible so parents do not have to give the same information many times.

Brighter Futures for Children

19. Reading Borough Council contracts out its education and children’s social services to Brighter Futures for Children (BFfC). When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.

The Children’s Statutory Complaints Process

20. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services.
21. Stage one of this procedure is local resolution where staff at the point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint. Stage one complaint responses should be completed in 10 working days, with a further 10 days for more complex complaints.
22. At stage two, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). The IP is responsible for overseeing the investigation.
23. The IO should have access to all relevant records and staff. These should be released within the bounds of normal confidentiality and with regard to relevant legislation in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018.
24. The Adjudicating Officer (AO) should be a senior council officer and should write to the complainant at the end of the stage two complaint investigation with details of the adjudication which confirms:

• the council’s response to the IO and IP’s reports;
• its decision on each point of complaint; and,
• any action to be taken (with timescales for implementation).

25. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 25 working days with a maximum extension to 65 working days. Councils should keep complainants updated on progress if there is any delay in sending the stage two response. (Guidance on Getting the Best from Complaints – Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others, 2006 (the Guidance))
26. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can then ask the council to set up an independent review panel. This forms the third stage of the complaints procedure. The complainant must ask for stage three within 20 days. The review panel will consider the adequacy of the independent stage two investigation and will decide whether the complainant’s desired outcomes have been addressed.
27. The guidance says a council has 30 working days to arrange and hold the stage three review panel. The panel has five working days to issue its findings. The council then has 15 working days to respond to the panel’s findings.
28. The review panel should make recommendations that provide practical remedies and creative solutions to difficult situations. It should identify any injustice to the complainant where complaints have been upheld and recommend appropriate remedies. The panel should also recommend service improvements for the council, if appropriate.
29. If a council has investigated a complaint under this statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless we consider the investigation was flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

What happened

30. Mrs Y’s son, Z, is a Looked after Child and has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).
31. Since 2016, Z has been accommodated by the Council under a care order. The court issued the care order under Section 31 of the Children’s Act 1989.  The court can make this order if it is satisfied that “the harm, or likelihood of harm [to the child], is attributable to … the care given to the child, or likely to be given … if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give … or the child being beyond parental control”.
32. In May 2019, Mrs Y complained to the Council. Z was 14 years old and in Year 10 at school.
33. In June, the Council considered her complaint at stage one. It provided Mrs Y with information on Z’s education. It said it was looking into the missing items. The Council apologised for the distress Mrs Y experienced when the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) asked if she was recording the meeting.
34. Mrs Y asked the Council to deal with her complaint at stage two.
35. In February 2020, the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted her report. She upheld parts a and e of Mrs Y’s complaint and partially upheld part c. She did not uphold parts b and d.
36. In March, the Council sent its stage two adjudication. It agreed with the IO. Mrs Y responded asking the Council to escalate her complaint to stage three.
37. At the end of March, the Council told Mrs Y that her complaint was on hold because of COVID-19 and the government’s restrictions and guidelines.
38. In July, the Council said its complaint service had been reopened. It offered to hold a virtual review panel meeting with her. Mrs Y asked to wait till they could meet in person.
39. In November, Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman after the Council signposted her due to difficulties in arranging a virtual meeting. The Ombudsman referred the matter back to the Council to complete stage three of the complaints process.
40. In March 2021, the Council arranged to hold the stage three review panel virtually. The stage three review panel agreed with the IO’s findings.
41. The Council agreed with the panel’s findings.
42. The Ombudsman then took up Mrs Y’s complaint.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

43. Parts a to e of Mrs Y’s complaint were investigated through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The IO considered part f of Mrs Y’s complaint when it was raised by her during the investigation.
44. As I have said above, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaint unless we consider the stage two investigation was flawed.
45. I am satisfied that the IO interviewed an appropriate range of people, and saw appropriate records and case notes. I find the investigation was thorough, well-balanced, and evidence-based. I do not find the investigation was flawed.
46. In light of this, I have looked at whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation (stage two) and review panel (stage three) for these parts of Mrs Y’s complaint.

Information provided about Z’s progress at school

47. The IO upheld Mrs Y’s complaint that BFfC had failed to keep her informed about her child, Z’s progress at school.
48. The IO said, while the evidence showed BFfC had experienced difficulty engaging with Mrs Y, it was not acceptable for BFfC to expect face to face contact as the main way of communicating. This was particularly so given this was likely to be the most difficult means of communication for Mrs Y.
49. The IO found BFfC should have provided regular updates in writing to Mrs Y on Z’s education and it had failed to provide her with the latest version of Z’s EHC Plan. Without this, BFfC had failed to show it had attempted to regularly engage with Mrs Y and keep her updated. This caused Mrs Y significant distress and uncertainty. The IO recommended BFfC take the following action to remedy this:
1. provide Mrs Y with an update on Z’s education and progress while she shares parental responsibility with the Council; and,
2. consider appointing a neutral member of staff to coordinate communication with Mrs Y.
50. The Council apologised to Mrs Y for failing to provide copies of the minutes of Z’s Looked after Child review meetings detailing his educational progress. It said it would send Mrs Y copies of these and copies of his EHC Plans, Care Plan and Personal Education Plan. It said it would send these to her by 13 March 2020.
51. The Council told me it sent Mrs Y the Care Plan in April 2020 and the EHC Plan in January 2021. However, it said there were no clear records that all documents had been sent to Mrs Y and Z’s social worker at BFfC would only share information with Mrs Y if considered appropriate or she had parental responsibility at the time. More recently, while Z was receiving his education in a different Council area, the Council said there was no evidence of Z’s social worker at BFfC consistently providing Mrs Y with decision letters following Z’s annual reviews of his EHC Plans. This is fault. Based on the evidence I have seen, I find BFfC has not taken sufficient action to ensure it is consistently communicating with Mrs Y about Z’s education. It has failed to consider alternative means of communicating with Mrs Y, including a neutral point of contact. This caused Mrs Y further distress and uncertainty.
52. During the IO’s investigation, Mrs Y also said she wanted BFfC to acknowledge and consider Z’s cultural and heritage needs. It is my understanding that, based on the IO’s response to this, the IO found BFfC had shown it was appropriately considering Z’s cultural and heritage needs, meaning there was no evidence of fault.
53. During the stage three review panel, Mrs Y raised this issue again. She said Z had recently eaten pork at his placement. She explained to me that this was not in line with Z and his family’s religion. BFfC said it would arrange for Z’s placement staff not to do this again. In my view, BFfC’s response is an implicit acceptance of fault here. This fault caused Mrs Y distress and upset. I have recommended the Council apologises to Mrs Y for this. This should include clear information on any action it has taken since this event and the key ways it is supporting Z’s identified cultural and heritage needs.

Z’s attendance of medical appointments

54. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to make sure Z attends his medical appointments. The IO did not uphold this part of Mrs Y’s complaint.
55. The IO report shows, up until June 2019, Z had refused to attend numerous LAC medical reviews, and Z was refusing to attend dentist and optician appointments.
56. Z’s Looked after Child (LAC) review from November 2019 confirmed, in June 2019, Z attended his annual health review.
57. The IO found that a change in social worker had led to Z beginning to attend the annual health reviews, which looked after children are required to undergo, and engage with the LAC nurse. Based on the evidence considered, the IO was satisfied Z’s new social worker was taking sufficient steps to encourage Z to attend his medical appointments and working with him to understand the importance of attending these. The IO noted that optician and dentist appointments continued to be made while the social worker worked with Z on attending these.
58. The Council’s stage two adjudicating officer and stage three review panel agreed with the IO’s findings. The review panel said Z was reluctant to attend the LAC medicals review and found it difficult to engage with the LAC nurse. But, this was now resolved, and Z was engaging well with the process.
59. As part of the review panel process, Mrs Y offered to speak with Z to encourage him to attend medical appointments. She said, as a parent, she may be able to talk Z through the appointment process.
60. The adjudicating officer said BFfC would consider Mrs Y’s offer to help with Z’s attendance at future medical appointments.
61. I asked the Council to provide me with its response to Mrs Y about her offer. Based on the Council’s reply, I find the Council and BFfC both failed to provide Mrs Y with a response. This is fault.
62. The Council told me that Mrs Y was often rude and derogatory when communicating with Z’s social worker and his social worker’s manager. The Council said Mrs Y refused to engage with BFfC social work staff and residential care staff, which created a barrier to them working together.
63. I have explained above my findings around the Council’s failure to consider alternative ways of communicating with Mrs Y. This is an instance where Mrs Y actively asked to help Z. The Council’s failure to respond during the complaints process caused her uncertainty and, on balance, meant Mrs Y felt unheard.
64. The Council told me Mrs Y now has contact sessions with Z and this provides an opportunity for her to discuss the medical appointments with him. However, to remedy the injustice identified above, I have recommended the Council apologises to Mrs Y for failing to respond to her request.

Loss of Z’s belongings

65. Mrs Y complains BFfC has failed to explain what happened to Z’s belongings that had gone missing. She says this relates to the following three items:

• three-wheeled bicycle;
• handheld games console; and,
• touchscreen tablet PC

(part c of the complaint)

66. The IO upheld Mrs Y’s complaint. During staff interviews, BFfC had accepted the belongings had been lost and it was aware this had likely occurred during the numerous placement changes Z had experienced. However, BFfC failed to provide sufficient records of when it first became aware of missing belongings, and what action it took and when. It failed to provide evidence that, once aware the items were missing, BFfC had told Mrs Y about this. This is fault.
67. The Council told me there are few instances of parents expressing concerns about items going missing that the parents had purchased for their children. It said this may be why BFfC does not have a policy in place to cover this issue.
68. Based on the evidence I have seen, BFfC provided confusing and, at times, conflicting responses about which of these three items it was aware Z possessed and when, and which missing belongings had been replaced. I have seen no evidence of BFfC making efforts to locate the missing items. This is fault. It is likely that BFfC’s lack of clear guidance to staff on the need to secure a child’s possessions during a move and how to handle reports of missing items contributed to this and the fault identified above.
69. The fault identified has caused Mrs Y distress and uncertainty. She has gone to time and trouble trying to receive a clear response from BFfC.
70. I have considered the IO’s report, stage three review panel, the adjudicating officer’s response and the Council’s response to my questions. Based on these, I find the following:

• a case note from September 2019, detailed in the IIO’s report, shows BFfC were willing to replace the lost touchscreen tablet PC and bicycle;
• Z told a previous social worker that he did not wish to ride the bicycle as it was not suitable to his needs. The social worker said this may have been why the bicycle had not been taken to the next placement. It is my understanding that this item has not been replaced by BFfC;
• in January 2020, BFfC replaced Z’s touchscreen tablet PC with a laptop, which Z preferred to use. I am satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by the loss of this item; and,
• there is no record of BFfC replacing the handheld games console.

71. Regarding the bicycle and handheld games console, the Council said it had asked Mrs Y to provide proof of purchase so that it can reimburse her for the losses. It said Mrs Y no longer has the receipts given how long ago the items were purchased. In these circumstances and given the Council has accepted BFfC has failed to ensure a system is in place for keeping track of childrens’ possessions and properly recording when items go missing, I have recommend the Council makes a contribution towards the costs of these lost items.

Contact sessions between Z and his family

72. The IO report found that, from May 2019, BFfC took the following action regarding arranging contact with Z and his family, including Mrs Y:

• on 10 June 2019, BFfC case notes from a call with Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) showed Z’s Care Plan recommended monthly face to face contact and weekly telephone contact with his parents. However, BFfC had not arranged contact with Z’s parents yet. The case notes said Mrs Y and Z’s father were not engaging with Z’s social worker, Social Worker B;
• the next day, Social Worker B wrote to Mrs Y and Z’s father to set up regular in person contact. Social Worker B asked to meet with them at the end of July to plan future contact;
• on 11 July, Social Worker B wrote a second letter to Mrs Y and Z’s father chasing them for a reply;
• at the beginning of October, BFfC held a LAC review for Z. Case notes from the review show Social Worker B had not been able to arrange to meet with Z’s parents to carry out a risk assessment and arrange contact. Case notes show Z was refusing to speak with his parents; and,
• in mid-November, Social Worker B wrote a further letter to Mrs Y and Z’s father with the date of a new meeting to plan for contact with Z.

73. The IO did not uphold part d of Mrs Y’s complaint because, based on the records seen and interviews with relevant staff, BFfC had made several attempts to meet with Mrs Y and Z’s father to arrange contact. However, BFfC had no record of Mrs Y responding to Social Worker B’s attempts to make contact. The adjudicating officer and review panel agreed with the IIO’s findings.
74. I accept that, between June to November 2019, Social Worker B made efforts to arrange to meet with Mrs Y and Z’s father to carry out a risk assessment before contact sessions started. BFfC was not at fault here.
75. However, the IO report also showed that Social Worker B was aware that communication between him and Mrs Y had broken down. The IIO report recommended BFfC consider developing a contact plan with Z and his parents and, as explained above, consider appointing a neutral member of staff to coordinate communication around this with Mrs Y. I have seen no evidence that the BFfC looked into setting up a neutral point of contact and promptly producing a contact schedule following its stage two response in March 2020. This is fault. On balance, it is likely that this contributed to further delays in setting up contact sessions between Z and his parents, which began again on a monthly basis from October 2020. This caused Mrs Y distress and uncertainty.
76. At the time of the review panel in March 2021, BFfC still had not produced a contact schedule. The review panel said this matter was resolved because contact had restarted. However, Mrs Y expressed her frustration that a clear contact schedule was not in place and current arrangements did not consider Z’s father’s health and work schedule. The Service Manager for BFfC’s Looked After Children & Leaving Care Service said she would note this to help with future arrangements. I find BFfC missed a further opportunity here to put a contact schedule in place as it had previously committed to doing so. This is fault, which has caused Mrs Y further uncertainty.

Action of the Independent Reviewing Officer

77. The IO’s report found, during a meeting to discuss contact arrangements, the Council’s IRO asked Mrs Y if she was recording the meeting. The IO found the Council at fault here (part e of the complaint).
78. The IO said this was because the meeting between the Officer and Mrs Y was a particularly difficult one. The IO said it would have been more appropriate for the Officer to have brought the meeting to a close and explained it could not continue while Mrs Y was shouting. Given the history of previous meetings being similarly difficult, the IO said the Council should have considered whether the Officer should have been accompanied by another member of staff.
79. In its stage two response accompanying the IO’s report, the Council agreed with the IO’s findings. It apologised to Mrs Y. It said the Service Manager for IROs had arranged to meet with the relevant officer to remind her of what is permissible in terms of recordings of professionals.
80. This aspect of Mrs Y’s complaint was upheld by the stage three review panel. The review panel report confirmed the Council had taken the following action:

• apologised to Mrs Y twice;
• spoken with the Officer, as it had committed to doing; and,
• produced new guidance for staff on recordings of meetings with Council officers. This includes information that, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), it is legal to make such recordings for personal use.

81. I am satisfied the IO and stage three review panel fully considered this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. I find the Council has made a range of remedies that suitably remedy the distress caused to Mrs Y and makes sure others are not similarly affected in the future. I do not recommend the Council takes any further action.

Decisions about Z’s allocated social worker

82. During the course of the stage two investigation, Mrs Y complained about the lack of communication from Z’s allocated social worker. She said her working relationship with the social worker had deteriorated to a point where she no longer had any communication with him. She asked for a change of social worker.
83. The IO explained to Mrs Y that, as the social worker was allocated to Z, it was not possible to change the social worker.
84. I am satisfied the IO fully considered this aspect of Mrs Y’s complaint. The decision by the Council not to change Z’s social worker was one it was entitled to make. The IO said the investigation shows Z was working well with the specific social worker. Without fault in how this decision was made, I cannot question its content.
85. The Council has told me that Z’s social worker then changed in June 2020, which has resulted in the outcome Mrs Y hoped to achieve.

Complaint handling

86. Mrs Y first complained to the Council in May 2019 and the Council sent its stage one complaint response 17 working days later. I do not find the Council at fault here. Its stage one complaint responses was sent within the maximum time period of 20 working days for complex cases.
87. On 17 July 2019, Mrs Y accepted the Council’s offer of a stage two complaint response. The Council should have sent the stage two documents no more than 65 working days later. However, the Council took 165 working days to send Mrs Y the IO and IP reports with the adjudication letter. This delay of 100 working days is fault, which caused Mrs Y uncertainty and distress.
88. On 11 March 2020, Mrs Y requested a stage three review. At the end of March, the Council told Mrs Y the complaints service had been suspended due to COVID-19.
89. 79 working days after Mrs Y’s request, the Council wrote to Mrs Y at the beginning of July offering to hold the stage three review panel virtually. At this point the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 applied, which said councils must convene a review panel within the statutory timescale of 30 working days or as soon as reasonably practicable. I do not find the Council at fault here as it made efforts to arrange the review panel as soon as its service was open again. Mrs Y declined the Council’s offer of a virtual meeting and asked to wait for a face to face review.
90. The Council asked Mrs Y again in October to attend the meeting virtually. Between October and the end of March 2021, when the Council sent Mrs Y the stage three review panel report, there were delays in the Council holding the review panel meeting. I accept that part of the delays were connected with finding ways to overcome the fact Mrs Y did not have the required technology to allow for the virtual meeting to take place. However, this period covered 145 working days and meant Mrs Y did not receive a stage three response until a year after her request. This delay is fault, which caused Mrs Y further uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

91. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with BFfC, I have made recommendations to the Council.
92. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mrs Y for the fault causing injustice identified above in relation to parts a to d of Mrs Y’s complaint and the delays in the complaint handling. This should include clear information on: any action it has taken since discovering Z had eaten pork at a placement and the key ways it is supporting Z’s identified cultural and heritage needs;
2. make a payment to Mrs Y of £400 for the distress and uncertainty caused by the fault identified. I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies when recommending this payment. I have taken into consideration the significant delays in the Council’s complaint handling at stages two and three when recommending a payment that is slightly higher than our usual range of £100 to £300;
3. make payments to Mrs Y of £290 as a contribution towards the cost of the two outstanding lost items (£200 towards the cost of the bike and £90 towards the cost of the games console, which is half the claimed cost of each item);
4. consider alternative ways of communicating with Mrs Y. This should include considering whether to provide Mrs Y with a neutral point of contact who can communicate with her, including when providing updates on Z’s care and education. The Council should report the outcome of this to us and the steps it has taken to improve communication with Mrs Y about Z’s education; and,
5. report back on the contact arrangements between Z, Mrs Y and Z’s father. A copy of the arranged contact schedule should be provided.
93. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has also agreed to make the following services improvements:
1. review its guidance to staff on what to do when the working relationship with the parents of a Looked after Child and their point of contact at the Council has deteriorated;
2. produce guidance to staff and residential care settings on handling reports of lost belongings of Looked after Children. This should include the circumstances when a family member or the Looked after Child reports missing belongings;
3. consider whether a specific process is necessary to ensure that the belongings of Looked after Children are properly tracked and audited. The Council should consider whether part of this would be creating a list of items collected at the end of a placement and confirmation that they were handed on to the child. The Council should provide evidence of this consideration and the outcome; and,
4. share this decision with relevant members of staff.
94. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

95. I have completed my investigation.
96. I have decided to uphold parts a to d of Mrs Y’s complaint, because there was fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the above recommendations, which are suitable ways for the Council to remedy this.
97. I have decided to uphold part e of Mrs Y’s complaint. This caused Mrs Y injustice. The Council has accepted this. I find the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy this.
98. I have not upheld part f of Mrs Y’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing her injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

99. Mrs Y complains about Council actions dating back to 2017.
100. The law says 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)
101. Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman in November 2020, meaning we would not usually investigate further back than November 2019. However, Mrs Y began navigating the statutory complaints process in May 2019 and, as explained above, there was fault by the Council in the delays in progressing her complaint. I, have, therefore, decided an investigation from May 2019 is fair and justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman