Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not conduct a Stage 3 complaints investigation properly and offered a remedy that was not proportionate to the injustice he suffered. Mr X states this matter has caused him stress and negatively impacted contact arrangements with his child, J. Based on the evidence seen so far, the Council was at fault when it delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X frustration and inconvenience. The Council offered Mr X a £500 goodwill award, this was a satisfactory remedy. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly conduct a Stage 3 panel. He also complained the Council offered him a goodwill award which was not sufficient to address the injustice he experienced due to its actions.
2. He said this matter has caused him significant distress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included complaint correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council and the Stage 2 and 3 investigation reports.
6. I will write to Mr X and the Council with the draft decision. I will consider any comments I receive before I write the final decision.

The Children’s statutory complaints procedure

7. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
10. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
11. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.

Back to top

What I found

12. Mr X’s child J became a looked after child in 2013. The courts decided Mr X should have monitored and indirect contact with J. Mr X has applied for more contact with J several times over the years.
13. In October 2019 Mr X complained to the Council. He was unhappy with statements made about his contact with J in review minutes and he felt the Council undermined their relationship.
14. The Council acknowledged the complaint and told Mr X it would respond by 27 November 2019.
15. The Council wrote to Mr X on 9 December 2019 at Stage 1 of its complaints process. The Council apologised for the delay in responding but did not uphold his complaint. The Council said all professionals who had attended the review agreed the minutes were accurate. The Council offered to send Mr X reports five days before meetings to give him a chance to contribute.
16. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and sent an email outlining further complaints. The Council did not fully respond until 29 May 2020 when Mr X chased for a response. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s initial summary of his complaint and was not satisfied with it until July 2020. The Council then appointed an Independent Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to carry out the Stage 2 investigation.
17. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s choice of IO and IP. He sent the Council many emails expressing his upset. The Council limited Mr X’s contact and suspended the Stage 2 investigation in August 2020 as it found some of Mr X’s emails abusive. The Council also informed Mr X it could not appoint an investigator of his choosing to carry out the Stage 2 investigation. The Council told Mr X to contact the Council when he was happy to continue the complaints process.
18. Mr X complained that the Council failed to escalate his complaint throughout December 2020. He said the Council unfairly stopped his contact with J and recorded inaccurate information about him in the LAC minutes. The Council told Mr X it was unable to progress the investigation because he would not accept the independent investigators assigned to his case.
19. On 9 January 2021 the Council appointed the IO and IP to Mr X’s case. Mr X said he would not accept them working on his case but eventually agreed the investigation could continue.
20. The IO reviewed J’s case file, the Council’s correspondence with Mr X and spoke to social workers involved with the case. The IO provided the Stage 2 response on 27 April 2021. The Council did not uphold all of Mr X’s complaints regarding contact with J but did note that in 2020 social workers were not as proactive in promoting contact between Mr X and J as they could have been. The IO further noted that some of the social worker’s reports were not detailed enough. The IO recommended that the Council apologise, offer Mr X a £250 gesture of goodwill and create an action plan to encourage more contact between Mr X and J.
21. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated the complaint to Stage 3. A Stage 3 panel took place on 9 June 2021. Mr X read a statement he prepared outlining his complaint points. He spoke of the Council’s delay in investigating his complaint and his view that the Council were biased against him, among other things. The panel discussed these points and concluded that contact between Mr X and J had been affected by COVID-19, communication issues and failures on a social worker’s part. The panel made several recommendations for how to remedy Mr X’s injustice including keeping Mr X’s contact arrangements under review and offering Mr X an additional £250 as a gesture of goodwill.
22. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the Council’s complaint management and remained dissatisfied with the financial award offered.
23. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council has confirmed that it consulted with the Ombudsman when investigating Mr X’s complaints and on occasion had to proceed without him as he would not communicate or cooperate with the investigation. The Council said it has implemented an action plan to ensure Mr X receives regular updates about J.

Findings

24. Mr X has said the Council’s complaints investigation was not properly conducted and the Council has shown bias against him. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to reinvestigate the Council’s investigation. It is the Ombudsman’s role to review the Council’s actions and determine whether it followed the correct process. I can see the Council appointed independent investigators to the case. I have reviewed the IO report for the Stage 2 investigation and the Stage 3 panel. I can see Mr X was given the opportunity to share his concerns. I can see the IO reviewed the appropriate records and spoke with all relevant parties to identify fault on the Council’s part. There is no indication of bias on the IO’s part. The IO made a suitable recommendation to remedy the injustice Mr X experienced, and the Council agreed to these recommendations. I cannot see any evidence that the Council acted with fault in its complaint management.
25. The Council was required to carry out the Stage 2 and Stage 3 investigation within certain timescales. The Council did not meet these timescales. The Council also delayed responding to Mr X’s initial request to escalate his complaint. This is fault. However, in the interests of fairness I can see the delay was partly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and Mr X’s refusal to engage with the process or accept the investigators appointed to work on his complaint. The evidence shows Mr X and the Council have had difficulty communicating and this has also contributed to the delay. Had the Council responded sooner, it is likely the process would still have been delayed due to the communication breakdown between Mr X and the Council. I therefore find the injustice caused to Mr X is minimal on this point.

Back to top

Draft decision

26. Based on the evidence seen so far, there was fault on the Council’s part. It has put forward a satisfactory remedy which addresses the injustice Mr X experienced. Subject to further comments by Mr X and the Council, I intend to complete the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman