• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• What I have and have not investigated
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Agreed action
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her complaints about her son’s social worker and the Council’s failure to support her son. The Council was not at fault in how it investigated the actions of the social worker. However, it was at fault for failing to investigate Ms X’s additional complaint she made in August 2023. At the end of this decision statement, we made recommendations about what the Council should do to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and her son.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that in early February 2023 her son, Mr A’s social worker failed to:
   • tell her quickly her son was attacked and injured: and
   • get Mr A to seek medical advice.
2. Ms X said the Council did not consider her complaint properly. It relied on altered reports and investigated the wrong incident. It then refused to investigate her complaint at stage three of its procedure because it considered her behaviour towards staff unacceptable.
3. Ms X would like the Council to apologise for its failings and support Mr A as it should have done from the beginning.
4. Ms X also complains that since September 2022 the Council failed to provide Mr A with support he was entitled to under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. This includes:
   • suitable accommodation, support and financial assistance;
   • suitable social and support workers to help him;
   • protection from harm;
   • full-time education;
   • clothes to assist him getting a job; and
   • mental health support.
5. Ms X says that because of this Mr A was assaulted on at least three separate occasions. She also told us that he attempted to take his life and the support workers the Council assigned to him:
   • were not suitable to work with Mr A because of their drug dependencies;
   • shared Mr A’s confidential information with others; and
   • did not take his suicide attempt seriously.
6. Additionally, she considers the Council’s advice to Mr A to go to college or work to support himself to be incorrect, as he cannot do that without support with his mental health and addiction.
7. Ms X said the Council failed to consider her complaint about this and treated it as a service enquiry rather than a complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
9. 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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
10. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
11. 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

What I have and have not investigated

12. I did not reinvestigate Ms X’s complaint about the outcomes of the Council’s investigation under the children’s statutory procedure. We have however considered if the Council followed the correct procedure and outcomes of its investigation were suitable.
13. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about the council’s failure to provide services to Mr A under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. This is because this part of her complaint did not complete the local complaints process. However, I have considered the Council’s failure to consider Ms X’s August 2023 complaint under its complaints procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. Before issuing this draft decision, I took account of:
    • information gathered from the Council;
    • relevant law and guidance as referred to in the text below; and
    • information and comments from Ms X about her complaint.
15. Ms X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedures

16. 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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
17. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
18. 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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
19. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
20. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
21. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
22. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
23. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
24. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

25. At the time of the complaint Mr A was a ‘looked after child’. This means the Council shared parental responsibility for him with Ms X. In late February 2023 Mr A was attacked and injured.
26. The following day Mr A’s support worker told his social worker about the attack.
27. Two days after the attack Ms X, after finding out about the attack from a family friend, told Mr A to go to hospital. Around the same time, she made a complaint to the Council, and said:
    • Mr A’s social worker did not contact her to tell her about the attack on Mr A; and
    • the social worker did not persuade Mr A to seek medical assistance and they should have.
28. In mid-March, the Council held a meeting about the incident.
29. At the end of the month the Council issued its stage one response. It upheld Ms X’s complaint and said Mr A’s social worker should have contacted her sooner about the incident, but it considered they acted correctly with regards to persuading Mr A to seek medical advice.
30. Ms X was unhappy about the outcomes of the Council’s investigation and asked it to revise it.
31. In May the Council issued another response to Ms X’s complaint and said that following her complaint it would:
    • speak to Mr A’s social worker and make sure they realised the importance of keeping her updated;
    • ensure that in the future she was updated promptly about significant events relating to Mr A;
    • make a referral to mentoring services for Mr A.
32. In early June 2023 Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint under stage two of the statutory process and said she wanted the Council to:
    • compensate her for the stress she experienced; and
    • dismiss Mr A’s social worker.
33. Ms X raised another complaint in August 2023 about the Council’s failure to provide Mr A with support that he needed as a looked after child under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
34. A few days after this the Council asked Ms X to be civil in her correspondence with the Council’s officers.
35. The Council issued its stage two response to Ms X’s complaint in mid-August 2023. The findings supported its first investigation, but on this occasion the Council:
    • apologised for the faults the investigation had found;
    • offered £300 for Ms X’s time and trouble in having to continue with the complaint recognising it should have done this at stage one of the complaints process; and
    • said that it completed all the recommendations from stage one of the investigation.
36. In late August Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at Stage 3. On the same day the Council replied to Ms X’s complaint from earlier in the month but treated this as a service request and not a complaint. Ms X clarified that she did not make a service request but made a complaint that the Council failed to accept.
37. In early September 2023 the Council sent a letter to Ms X. It told her that her contact was now restricted to a single officer following a number of inappropriate messages to Mr A’s social worker and Council staff. It also told her that because of the breakdown in communication it would not consider her first complaint at stage three of the statutory procedure, and it asked us to consider the complaint without it having completed all parts of the statutory complaints procedure.

Analysis

Complaint about events of February/March 2023

38. The Council considered X’s complaint under the first two stages of the statutory complaints procedure.
39. For the reasons given in paragraph 13, I have not re-investigated the matters already considered by the Council through the statutory complaint process. Instead, I have considered how the Council handled the investigation and whether the Council has properly remedied any related injustice.
40. The Council accepted it was at fault for not telling Ms X about the incident Mr A was involved in sooner. This caused her avoidable distress as she found out from a family friend. Additionally, when Ms X complained about this, the Council did not offer her any remedy until she escalated her complaint to stage two of the investigation process. This means she went to avoidable time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The council offered £300, and we consider this to be a suitable remedy for the avoidable distress and time and trouble she suffered because of the Council’s actions.
41. Additionally, the Council apologised to Ms X for its faults, but we do not consider this to be a suitable apology. This is because the apology consisted of a single line and did not follow our published guidance on apologies. For this reason, we recommend the Council apologises to her again, this time referencing our guide on how we expect organisations to apologise.
42. I did not investigate those parts of Ms X’s complaint the Council did not uphold during its original investigation. This is because there is no evidence the Council’s investigation, or its findings were unsound. I appreciate Ms X does not agree with the conclusions of the Council’s investigation. However, it is unlikely we would find further fault with how the Council investigated Ms X’s complaint.
43. Ms X wanted the Council to consider her complaint at stage three of the statutory process, but it did not. Ms X’s case did not meet the criteria detailed in paragraph 24 above, and the Council’s decision to refer her early to us is fault.
44. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and further delay having her complaint considered by the Council.

Complaint about support for Mr A August 2023

45. In early August 2023 Ms X made another complaint about the Council’s support for Mr A under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. The Council considered this as a service request, but Ms X quickly clarified that this was a separate complaint.
46. The Council failed to consider and reply to this complaint. This is fault. This is because the Council failed to follow its own complaints procedure. We consider this caused Ms X and Mr A avoidable distress and uncertainty. We have recommended what the Council should do to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
    • apologise to Ms X for its failure to tell her quickly of the attack on Mr A and the distress and frustration this has caused Ms X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
    • pay Ms X £300 it offered to remedy the distress, frustration and unnecessary time and trouble she experienced;
    • agree a statement of complaint and, if Ms X still wants the Council to consider her complaint, fully investigate the complaint Ms X made to it in August 2023 about the quality of services to Mr A under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000; and
    • pay an additional £150 to Ms X for the avoidable uncertainty the delay in investigating her complaint from August 2023 has caused her.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The Council was not at fault for how it considered Ms X’s complaint under the statutory children’s procedure, but it was at fault for not investigating the separate complaint she made in August 2023. The Council agreed to our recommendations and our investigation is now complete.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page