Summary: Mr X complained about his dealings with the Council as a care leaver. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the three-stage statutory children’s complaints process where most of Mr X’s complaints were upheld. I cannot add to what has already been said. I cannot resolve a dispute about what was said by a social worker in a telephone conversation two and a half years ago which Mr X says led to the termination of his employment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council told his employer to terminate his employment. He wants compensation for the loss of his income and the impact on himself and his family. He wants disciplinary action to be taken against a social worker.
2. He is unhappy the complaints process failed to resolve the matter and wants the Ombudsman to review the complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by Mr X’s representative and information provided by the Council, including its response to his complaint at all three stages of the statutory children’s complaints process.
5. I invited Mr X, through his representative, and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The termination of Mr X’s employment

6. Mr X is a former looked after child. He was looked after by the Council (“in care”) when he was a child. The events Mr X complains about happened after he left the Council’s care and while he was receiving support from the Council as a “care leaver”.
7. Mr X worked for a care agency. His role was to support and advise care leavers. He had worked for the agency for approximately two weeks when on 20 August 2020 a social worker from the Council telephoned the agency and spoke to his manager. Mr X was working in the same office and overheard part of the conversation. It is this conversation which forms the basis of Mr X’s complaint.
8. It is common ground between Mr X and the Council that the social worker told the manager of the care agency that Mr X was himself a care leaver, that he had been looked after by the Council, and he was still receiving support. The social worker said she thought this created a conflict of interest if Mr X was to advise other care leavers from the Council.
9. Following a lengthy investigation and response under the statutory children’s services complaints process, the Council accepted that it was wrong of the social worker to divulge personal information to Mr X’s employer. The social worker accepted she had made an error of judgement and had not discussed the matter with her managers before contacting Mr X’s employer. The social worker and the Council have apologised.
10. This has not, however, resolved Mr X’s complaint.
11. Two issues remain.
12. First, Mr X alleges he overheard the social worker describe him as a troublemaker and a “prolific complainer” during her conversation with his manager.
13. Second, following the conversation with the social worker, Mr X’s employer terminated his employment. A letter dated 1 October 2022 addressed “To whom it may concern” (basically a ‘reference’) says the employer was extremely happy with Mr X’s work, but had to terminate his employment when the Council said they could no longer employ him due to a conflict of interest.
14. The Council disputes both allegations. The social worker says she was unaware of Mr X’s previous complaints and did not describe him in the derogatory terms Mr X alleges. She says she did not say the agency could not employ Mr X, rather thought should be given to whether he should work with care leavers from the same Council he was also receiving support from.
15. I have two conflicting accounts of what was said during the 20 August 2020 telephone conversation.
16. During an investigation at the first stage of the complaints process, the Council spoke to the manager at the care agency. Unfortunately, there are no useful records of what was discussed, and the officer undertaking the investigation has since left the Council. At the second stage of the complaints process, the independent investigator twice tried to contact the author of the 1 October 2020 letter but he did not respond.
17. The Council’s investigations have failed to resolve the disagreement about what was said on 20 August 2020.
18. The Ombudsman is an administrative review. Our methods of investigation are informal. Unlike the courts, we do not hear evidence under oath, for example, and we have no formal process of cross-examination.
19. Regrettably, therefore, there is no way for me to resolve the dispute about what was said in a telephone conversation two and a half years ago in August 2020. I cannot make a finding on Mr X’s complaint since there are no grounds for me to prefer one account of what was said over the other.
20. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to recommend disciplinary action against the social worker he alleges told his employer to terminate his employment. I have been unable to reach a conclusion on Mr X’s complaint, and in any event, the Ombudsman makes findings against the Council, not individual officers, and does not recommend disciplinary action.
21. Mr X understandably places a great deal of significance on the letter of 1 October 2020 in which his employer says the Council told them to terminate his employment. However, that does not help me to establish what the social worker actually said in the disputed telephone conversation six weeks earlier. In any event, whatever was said, Mr X’s employer, not the Council, was ultimately responsible for deciding what to do and is answerable for the consequences.
22. Mr X wants compensation for the loss of his employment. While I understand the strength of his feeling, claims of this nature – effectively Mr X is seeking damages for what he alleges was misleadingly said about him – are best decided by the Courts.

The Council’s complaint handling

23. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint. He is unhappy with the investigation carried out by a Council officer at the first stage of the complaints process. He is unhappy with the length of time the complaints process has taken. He says that if the Council had responded appropriately at the first stage, he could have been reinstated and would have been financially secure and able to focus fully on completing his degree. Further, he complains the length of time taken to complete the complaints process has limited the time he will have the support of a council-funded advocate to review his care files.
24. When a council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel, and any remedy the Council offers.
25. I have read all the papers from all three stages of the statutory complaints process, and the Council’s responses. I am satisfied the complaints process properly addressed all of Mr X’s complaints, including Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s response at the first stage. These were addressed by the independent investigator at the second stage and upheld.
26. Indeed most of Mr X’s complaints were upheld. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations and has apologised. There is nothing more I can add.
27. The complaints process took longer than it should have done. Mr X made 22 complaints and asked 16 ‘questions’, all of which were thoroughly considered by the independent investigator and complaint review panel.
28. I consider the Council’s apologies and its offer of £1,000 to be a suitable symbolic remedy for the injustice caused. I cannot conclude that a satisfactory investigation at stage one would have enabled Mr X to secure his reinstatement. This was not the conclusion at the end of the complaints process and not one I can reach myself now for the reasons given above.
29. Since making his complaint, Mr F has completed his studies and is, therefore, no longer eligible for services from the Council as a former looked after child. I understand he wishes to continue to review his care files and would appreciate the support of the advocate he had while in receipt of services as a former looked after child in doing so. There are no grounds for me to recommend the Council offer this additional support. While I appreciate that Mr X had many demands on his time, including his young family, his university studies, his complaint and his work, I cannot make a link between the complaints process and a lack of opportunity to review his files.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have ended my investigation. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the three-stage statutory children’s complaints process where most of Mr X’s complaints were upheld. I cannot add to what has already been said or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman