Summary: Miss B complained about how the Council dealt with her in relation to her daughter who is in local authority care. There is no fault in the majority of the complaint. There was a failure to provide Miss B with input into one review meeting and the Council has not provided a review date for the communications plan in place. The apology and change of procedure the Council has already put in place, along with an amended policy for unreasonably persistent complainants is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained about the way the Council dealt with her in relation to her daughter who is in local authority care. Miss B complained the Council:
• failed to respond to her complaints, delayed responding to her complaint and misrepresented what she wanted to complain about;
• gave her late or no notice of contact sessions;
• included incorrect information in its letter of 18 December 2020 about the length of direct contact sessions;
• failed to confirm it would arrange Skype contact for those direct contact sessions cancelled due to Covid 19;
• delayed confirming travel bookings for direct contact;
• failed to plan for reunification between Miss B and her daughter and failed to provide a reunification document;
• allowed its social worker to show coercive behaviour towards her daughter by delaying responding to her;
• failed to deal with her concerns about how her daughter’s carer deals with her and how that carer has abused Miss B;
• failed to investigate her concerns about the social worker bullying her;
• failed to ensure her daughter’s vaccinations are up-to-date and refused to consider an additional vaccination she normally arranges for her daughter;
• failed to act to address her daughter’s poor diet and lack of culturally appropriate foods;
• failed to investigate her concerns about the first placement her daughter went into;
• unreasonably refused to allow her to attend review meetings and provided inadequate time following those meetings to feedback;
• delayed completing the review meeting due at the end of 2020;
• failed to arrange a parent’s meeting at her daughter’s school and only provided school reports after significant chasing;
• provided inaccurate information to court, leading to her daughter being placed in care; and
• refused to accept an anonymous children’s services complaint.
2. Miss B says action by the Council has caused her and her daughter significant distress and has led to them being separated for longer than they should have.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated what happened from January 2020 onwards, with the exception of concerns about the Council’s refusal to accept an anonymous children’s services complaint and matters relating to court proceedings. The final section of this statement contains my reason(s) for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
7. 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

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
10. 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

11. Miss B’s daughter entered local authority care and went to live with foster carers in 2016. Miss B’s daughter moved to new foster carers later that year. I have considered the period from January 2020 onwards.
12. At each of the reviews that have taken place since January 2020 the Council has confirmed its plan is for Miss B’s daughter to remain in long-term foster care. The Council has confirmed that position to Miss B on several occasions. The Council carried out a single assessment in February 2021 which again confirmed local authority care was most appropriate for Miss B’s daughter.
13. There have been issues with communication between Miss B and the Council. That has resulted in the Council putting into place a communications plan which made clear the Council would only respond to emails if it considered a response was necessary. The communications plan also restricted Miss B’s telephone contact with the Council to emergency safeguarding issues only.

Analysis

14. Miss B says the Council failed to respond to her complaint, delayed responding to her complaints and misrepresented what she wanted to complain about. In terms of responses, I recognise the Council has not always responded to Miss B’s contacts and complaints. I am satisfied though this is because the Council has in place a communications plan to manage contact with Miss B due to the excessive number of contacts and some contacts which the Council considers inappropriate. As part of that communication plan the Council will only respond to those matters where it considers a response is required and will not therefore respond to all Miss B’s correspondence.
15. I understand why Miss B would be frustrated with that. However, it is clear there has been significant correspondence with Miss B and despite numerous communication plans the Council is not satisfied the situation has resolved to the point where normal communications can resume. I cannot criticise the Council for that in Miss B’s case. The Ombudsman would expect the Council to have in place a policy though which should include details about how long the restrictions will last and when they will be reviewed. I cannot see the Council has such a policy in place. I do not consider that has caused Miss B a significant injustice given it is clear the Council is not satisfied she has complied with the communication plans in place. Nevertheless, I recommended the Council revise its policy to ensure it provides more detail about how and when any restrictions will be reviewed. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
16. In terms of misrepresenting the complaint, this relates to a verbal complaint Miss B made over the telephone. I am satisfied following submission of that complaint the Council emailed Miss B to clarify what it understood the complaint to be and Miss B said she would submit her own written complaint as she felt the summary missed some points. Given Miss B had the opportunity to amend the complaint summary I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
17. Miss B says the Council has given her late or no notice of contact sessions. Having considered the documentary evidence I have found nothing to suggest fault by the Council led to late notice or no notice of contact sessions. Rather, the evidence I have seen satisfies me when late notice has been given this is due to the uncertainties created by Covid 19 which has affected whether face-to-face contact sessions can take place. For confirmation of 2021 contacts I am satisfied the delay occurred because the Council was waiting for confirmation from the centre hosting the contact. As I have found no evidence of fault by the Council resulting in late or no notice of contact sessions I have no grounds to criticise it.
18. Miss B says the Council’s letter of 18 December 2020 wrongly said contact sessions would take place for two hours. Miss B says as contact has been shortened to one hour during Covid 19 the Council knowingly issued an incorrect letter. While I understand Miss B’s concern, I am aware Government guidance around what is appropriate during Covid 19 has changed over time. Unfortunately, that necessarily means even if the Council quotes a specific timescale for contact sessions and that they will take place face-to-face there is no guarantee this is what will happen. I am satisfied as well as the letter Miss B refers to Council officers were in regular contact with Miss B about contact sessions. I am therefore satisfied Miss B would have known when they were taking place, how long they were taking place for and where they would take place. In those circumstances and given the changing Covid 19 situation at the time I do not consider this warrants a finding of fault.
19. Miss B says the Council failed to confirm it would arrange Skype contacts for direct contact sessions cancelled due to Covid 19. I am satisfied the Council confirmed that in writing in April 2021. I am also satisfied Miss B would have known this was the procedure in place in 2020. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
20. Miss B says the Council delayed confirming travel bookings for her to attend face-to-face contact with her daughter. Miss B says the Council generally booked taxis at the last minute and failed to arrange enough time for her to get to contact sessions. Having considered the documentary evidence, I note the Council has mainly provided bus tickets for Miss B to attend contact sessions. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council delayed booking those tickets. I recognise though the Council arranged taxis during part of the Covid 19 period due to Miss B’s concern about the safety of using buses. I welcome that. The documentary evidence shows on one occasion a taxi did not turn up and I understand taxis did not always attend on time. As I do not have any evidence about the reason why a taxi did not arrive or turned up late I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether this was due to fault by the Council. I note though late taxis did not prevent Miss B having her allotted time with her daughter at the contact session.
21. Miss B says the Council failed to make plans for reunification between her and her daughter. In particular, Miss B says the Council failed to provide a reunification document. Having considered the documentary evidence I have identified nothing to suggest the Council told Miss B it considered reunification a possibility for her and her daughter. Instead, all the Council’s communications with Miss B made clear there were no plans for reunification and the plan for Miss B’s daughter was long-term foster care.
22. I am satisfied though the Council agreed to carry out an assessment in 2021 to establish what, if anything, needed to be in place before Miss B’s daughter could return to Miss B’s care. However, that is not the same as saying the Council had agreed to reunification. I am satisfied the documentary evidence shows the Council had not made any such agreement. It is also clear from the single assessment completed in 2021 the Council remains of the view that returning Miss B’s daughter to her care would likely result in her (the daughter) experiencing harm. The social worker therefore concluded Miss B’s daughter’s needs were best met in the care of the local authority. Given that has been the consistent view of the Council throughout the period I have investigated and as the Council has made that view clear to Miss B I have found no evidence to support Miss B’s contention the Council agreed to arrange reunification. It follows I have no grounds to criticise it.
23. Miss B says the Council’s social worker has shown coercive behaviour towards her daughter by delaying responding to her. There is nothing in the documentary records to confirm such behaviour has taken place. Nor do I have any evidence from Miss B’s daughter to suggest she has a concern about how the social worker communicates with her. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
24. Miss B says the Council failed to deal with her concerns about how her daughter’s carer deals with her daughter. Miss B also says the Council failed to act when the carer abused her (Miss B). In terms of the carer’s relationship with Miss B’s daughter, there is nothing in the documentary records to suggest there are any difficulties in that relationship. Nor is there any documentary evidence I have seen to support Miss B’s contention she reported an assault by the carer on her in front of her daughter. In the absence of any evidence of an issue I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
25. Miss B says the Council failed to investigate her concerns about the social worker bullying her. I have not found any evidence in the documentary records to suggest bullying by the social worker. I appreciate there have been difficulties in the relationship between Miss B and Council officers. However, in the absence of any documentary records showing bullying behaviour I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
26. Miss B says the Council failed to ensure her daughter’s vaccinations were kept up-to-date. Miss B also says the Council failed to consider her request for a further vaccination which she normally arranges for her daughter. Having considered the documentary records I am satisfied the Council followed up with the NHS to confirm that Miss B’s daughter’s vaccinations were up-to-date. The NHS confirmed that in December 2020. In terms of the additional vaccine Miss B wanted her daughter to have, the Council again consulted the NHS which advised she did not need the vaccination. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council here.
27. Miss B says the Council failed to act to address her daughter’s poor diet and lack of culturally appropriate food. I have carefully considered the documentary records, particularly from the various reviews and visits to Miss B’s daughter which have taken place. None of that documentation identifies an issue with Miss B’s daughter’s diet or her overall health. Nor is there any indication in the documentary records to suggest Miss B’s daughter has raised concerns about the diet she receives or the type of food she is provided with. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
28. Miss B says the Council failed to investigate her concerns about the first placement her daughter went to. I have now identified this first placement took place in April 2016. As I say in paragraph 4 of this statement, the Ombudsman will not normally consider a complaint about matters which occurred more than 12 months ago. Now I am aware this part of the complaint took place five years ago I am not exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the issue further. That is because I am satisfied there is no reason Miss B could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time.
29. Miss B says the Council refused to allow her to attend review meetings and provided inadequate time following review meetings to feedback. Miss B believes the meeting following the review should be extended to allow her to ask questions. Miss B is referring here to a period where she had a meeting with Council officers following the review meeting for Council officers to update her about what had been agreed. Those meetings no longer take place and instead Miss B receives feedback through the review reports. I understand though Miss B would prefer to attend the review meetings. While it is normal for parents to attend review meetings there are also circumstances in which it is considered inappropriate. In this case Miss B and the father of the child are not invited to review meetings at Miss B’s daughter’s request. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for not inviting Miss B to review meetings.
30. For the period where meetings were held with Miss B after the review meeting to feedback, I understand why Miss B would have wanted more time to provide comment and input. However, I am satisfied before review meetings take place Miss B has the opportunity to complete a parental consultation form. That is her opportunity to have input into the meeting. As the meeting after the review meeting is intended just to give feedback to Miss B I cannot criticise the Council for restricting the length of that meeting, although it no longer takes place. I am concerned though that in the case of the March 2021 meeting Miss B did not receive the parental consultation forms. I understand this happened because officers were working from home due to Covid 19. However, it is likely officers had been working from home for some considerable time before March 2021 and I therefore see no reason why parental forms could not have been sent out. Failure to do that is fault. The Council has apologised for that and has put in place a procedure to ensure this does not happen again. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.
31. Miss B says the Council delayed completing the review meeting due at the end of 2020. Having considered the documentary evidence I have not identified any commitment to hold a review before the end of 2020. Rather, the review completed in September 2020 refers to the plan continuing until February 2021, which is when the next review took place. As there is no evidence a review was planned before the end of 2020 I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
32. Miss B says the Council failed to arrange a parent’s meeting with her daughter’s school and only provided school reports after significant chasing. The evidence I have seen satisfies me it was the school’s responsibility to arrange the parents meeting rather than the Council’s. I am satisfied though when Miss B raised concerns about not having a date for a meeting the Council contacted the school and continued to chase it for a date and a copy of the school report. In addition, there is evidence of a meeting taking place. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within two months of my decision the Council should review its policy on complaints from unreasonably persistent complainants to ensure the process to review any restrictions and the timescale for doing so is made clear both in the procedure and in letters to complainants informing them of the restrictions.
34. The Council has already apologised to Miss B for failing to provide her with input into the March 2021 review meeting and has amended its processes to ensure this does not happen again.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Miss B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I have not investigated Miss B’s concerns about the information presented to court which resulted in her daughter being placed into care. That is because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider those complaints as they relate to matters which have been part of court proceedings. If Miss B wanted to challenge the information the Council provided to court she would have needed to do so in court. The decision to place Miss B’s daughter into care was made by the court and therefore this also falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
37. I have also not investigated Miss B’s concerns about the Council refusing to accept an anonymous children’s services complaint from her. That is because I do not consider any investigation of that point would result in a finding of fault. That is because Government guidance is clear anonymous complaints fall outside the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
38. Finally, I have restricted my investigation to the period from January 2020 onwards. As I say in paragraph 4, the Ombudsman will not normally consider a complaint about matters which occurred more than 12 months ago. I see no reason why Miss B could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time and I am therefore not exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the period before January 2020.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman