Summary: We found fault with the Council for delays in the statutory complaint process when it investigated Mrs B’s complaint. This caused an injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice it caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained about the Council’s response following a statutory complaint investigation. She complained the Council:
• Dismissed the stage three panel findings.
• Failed to carry out all the agreed recommendations.
• Delayed the process.
2. She said this caused the family distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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

6. I spoke to Mrs B and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mrs B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered any comments I received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Policy and legislation

8. The government sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about statutory social services. The handling and consideration of complaints consists of three stages: (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
• Stage 1: Staff at point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint.
• Stage 2: An investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent and fair.
• Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as Adjudicating Officer (AO) and consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes.
• Stage 3: The complaint is considered by a review panel. The Panel must consist of three independent people.
9. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a brief summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues.
10. The Council must send its response to the panel’s recommendations to the complainant within 15 days of receiving the panel’s report. The response should be developed by the relevant Director / Director of Children’s Services setting out how the Council will respond to the recommendations and what action will be taken.
11. If the Council deviates from the panel’s recommendations it should demonstrate its reasoning in the response. In developing a response, the Council should invite comment from all the panel attendees.
12. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:
• 10 days at stage 1 (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or additional time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage 2 (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to request a Review Panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage 3;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the local authority to respond to the findings
13. In March 2015, the LGO published a thematic report highlighting learning from its investigations into the Children Act complaints system, ‘Are we getting the best from children’s social care complaints?’. A common issue raised was delay in the complaint procedure. The report gave councils advice about how to avoid this fault.

What happened

14. What follows is a brief chronology of the case. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Mrs B is related to the young person at the centre of this complaint, C. She complained to us on behalf of C’s father, Mr D. Mrs B provided support to C and Mr D. C has a long history of involvement with children’s services. At the time of the incidents that led to the complaint C was in the care of the Council.
16. In 2018 C was involved in a serious incident whilst in the care of the Council. They were hospitalised and sadly they are left with a serious life changing condition.
17. The family complained to the Council about the events leading to the incident and the Council’s communication with the family during this period.
18. In February 2019 Mrs B asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of the statutory complaint process. The Council told Mrs B it could not progress to stage two because it was going to carry out a ‘local learning review’.
19. In June 2019 the Council invited Mrs B to a meeting as part of the review process. She received the meeting minutes in August. She attended further meetings in September and December. She says she did not receive any minutes from these meetings.
20. Mrs B requested the stage two investigation again in February 2020. It told her the stage two investigation had not been started because of the review. It told her it would arrange a meeting to discuss her concerns after she had received the review information.
21. In March 2020 Mrs B wrote to the Council again. She complained about the delays appointing an investigator for stage two. She said the review did not address the complaint issues.
22. In June 2020 the Council agreed to investigate her complaint at stage two but said it could not commission the investigation because of COVID-19 restrictions.
23. The IO and IP were appointed in September 2020. They met Mrs B and Mr D and agreed the statement of complaint, there were 17 complaint headings in total.
24. The IO’s stage two report was issued in December 2020. It upheld one complaint and partially upheld another. The other complaints were not upheld. The AO accepted the stage two findings and recommendations.
25. Mrs B was not satisfied with the stage two findings. She asked to progress to stage three. The stage three panel took place in March 2021. It disagreed with some of the stage two findings. It upheld three complaints and partially upheld one. The rest remained not upheld. It made further recommendations.
26. The Council reviewed the panels final. In its response it did not agree with all of the stage two or stage three panel findings. It set out its reasons in its letter to Mrs B and Mr D.
27. Mrs B remained unhappy with the Councils response and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Delays

28. Mrs B requested a stage two investigation in February 2019. It took nearly 18 months after her first request for the Council to appoint an IO and IP.
29. The Council gave several reasons for this delay:
• It could not carry out the stage two until the local learning review was completed.
• It wanted Mrs B to consider the review findings and meet the Council before she decided it there were any issues to remained unhappy with.
• COVID-19 restrictions.
• Consent to share court papers.
30. Complaint nine of the stage two investigation considered the delays in the statutory complaint process. The IO upheld this complaint, as did the stage two adjudication.
31. The IO said the Council failed to explain why the statutory complaint process and local learning review could not run concurrently. I agree with the findings. The local learning review delayed the stage two by at least 12 months and it failed to address Mrs B’s complaint issues.
32. In our annual letter to the Council in 2020 we told the Council we were concerned that in several cases it failed to properly operate the statutory complaint procedure. We found it substituted its own methods, usually involving inviting complainants to meetings when they exercised their right to request escalation. The same fault was repeated in this case.
33. The Council also relied on the COVID-19 restrictions as a further reason for its delays. If the Council had acted without fault the stage two investigation would have started before the COID-19 restrictions and Mrs B would not have experienced the additional delays that resulted. The Council compounded its own fault and added to Mrs B’s injustice.
34. I found fault with the Council for failing to adhere to the statutory complaint procedure. Its delays caused Mrs B distress. She also experienced the additional time and trouble of bringing the complaint to us.
35. The Council apologised to Mrs B for the delays. In response to our enquiries it offered to pay £500 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble it caused. This is a suitable remedy.

Stage three adjudication

36. Mrs B said she felt let down and disappointed by the Council’s final response following the stage three panel.
37. The Council did not agree with all the stage two or stage three panel findings. It is entitled to disagree provided it demonstrates its reasoning in its response. The Council provided an explanation for its finding on each of the complaints considered at panel. Mrs B may not agree with the Councils response but where there was no fault in the way the decision was reached, we would not question the professional judgement of the decision maker.
38. The Council did point out it accepted the recommendations made from both the internal review and the statutory complaint process. It provided evidence the recommendations and action were completed or were in progress.
39. I did not find fault with the Council for the way it considered the stage three panel findings and recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of my final decision the Council agrees to:
• Pay Mrs B £500 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble it caused.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I found fault with the Council causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman