Summary: Mr X complains the statutory complaints process failed to address the continuing injustice caused to him by the Councils failure to provide support to him as a Looked After Child. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to provide reasonable remedies and recommendations following the conclusion of the stage three review panel. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedies, review Mr X’s circumstances, and provide further services to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X, represented by Ms Y, complains that:

• Poor social work practice led to Mr X, pre-18 years old, not having his needs assessed,
• the Council placed Mr X in unsuitable out of area accommodation which did not meet his needs,
• the Council failed to respond adequately at stage one and two of the complaints process, and
• the stage 3 review panel has offered unsuitable redress.

2. Mr X complains that despite all his complaints being upheld, there has been little action to address the impact and injustice.
3. Mr X also complains that he remains in emergency accommodation that does not meet his needs. He says he is still without education or training, despite having a provider with a package ready for him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint and information provided by his advocate, Ms Y. I also considered information from the Council.
7. I considered comments from Mr X, Ms Y and the Council on a draft of my decision.
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures

The three-stage process

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
12. 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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. When Mr X was 16 years old, the Council removed from his mother’s care due to concerns for his wellbeing. He was placed in Council accommodation under section 20 legislation by the Councils children’s social care department.
16. The Council first placed Mr X in a bed and breakfast out of area temporarily while it sought a more permanent placement for him.
17. The Council then moved Mr X to a different bed and breakfast, still out of area.
18. The social worker assigned to Mr X told Mr X he was seeking to arrange permanent accommodation back within the Council’s area, and that he was arranging for Mr X to have a passport. He also said he would arrange for the Council to carry out assessments so when Mr X turned 18, he would have access to suitable housing support to get permanent accommodation.
19. As Mr X was 16, the Council also referred him to its pathway for support and advice.
20. The pathway referral was delayed, and the Council decided Mr X did not need support. This was because the social worker had developed a support plan for Mr X, and Mr X had declined to work with the pathway team. Mr X’s personal advisor asked for a reassessment, and the Council reopened the case. The Council later completed the reassessment which determined Mr X had eligible care needs.
21. The Council moved Mr X to supported accommodation back within its local area in January 2023.

Stage one complaint

22. Mr X complained to the Council via his advocate, Ms Y. In his complaint he said

• His social worker had told him he would have permanent accommodation when he turned 18, but this had not happened,
• The Council had failed to arrange the transition to adulthood assessment before him turning 18,
• The Social worker had lied to Mr X about continuing issues,
• Mr X had lost out on housing and education opportunities, and the social worker’s actions had impacted his relationship with his family.

23. The Councils response at stage one of the complaint’s process upheld:

• The social worker did not always give clear information to Mr X and did not process the agreed documents.
• The agreed applications to housing were completed but were delayed by further assessments. This meant that Mr X was not aware of the process and timescales for accommodation.
• The Council should not have placed Mr X in bed and breakfast accommodation.
• There were delays in the preparing for adulthood assessment which in turn delayed the result of the assessments.
• poor communication and actions from the Council caused stress and pressure on family relationships.

24. The Council did not uphold that it could have arranged the move back to the Council’s area sooner. It said this action was dependent on meetings and assessments, and there were also concerns about Mr X’s behaviour.
25. The Council did not offer any remedies to Mr X despite upholding most of his complaint.

Stage two complaint

26. Mr X remained unhappy with the Councils response as he felt it did not address the continuing impact caused to him. He asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two.
27. The Council appointed an independent person (IP) and independent officer (IO) to investigate Mr X’s complaint.
28. The IO report said:

• They upheld the complaint about failure to process documents.
• They upheld the complaint the social worker did not give clear information to Mr X about his choices and who would be completing work with him.
• There was a delay in the transition to adult services assessment, which caused a delay in discussions about accommodation and Mr X being made aware of his options.
• There was a delay in sending the assessment to Mr X.
• The Council gave inconsistent information to Mr X and his family, which caused undue stress.
• The stage one complaint was completed out of timescales and delayed.
• Mr X should not have been placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. The IO could not reach a conclusion on whether the other placements were suitable. This was because some of the delay in moving Mr X from these placements were due to assessments and Mr X’s own behaviour.
• There was delay in moving Mr X back to the Council area as the delay in assessments meant he was not given information about his choices in a timely manner.
• The first care act assessment did not meet Mr X’s needs as it needed further information, however the newer version did meet his needs.

29. The IO recommended:

• The Council apologise to Mr X.
• The Council provide further support from Mr X’s personal advisor and the preparing for adulthood team.
• Consider a financial remedy for distress.
• Complaint handling staff to be given further training.

30. The IO agreed with the findings and conclusions in from the IO report and supported the recommendations.
31. The Council accepted the findings by the IP and IO and said it would:

• offer support from Mr X’s personal advisor to access more permanent housing and develop independence,
• provide relevant training to staff, and
• provide a personal budget for Mr X to access through his personal advisor.

Stage three

32. Mr X believed the Council had not properly addressed the continuing injustice to him in its remedies of his complaint. Mr X recognised that while the investigation at stage two mostly covered his points of complaint, the outcomes and remedies did not cover the injustice. He asked for the complaint be considered by a stage three review panel.
33. The Council appointed a review panel to consider Mr X’s complaint. The stage three review panel did not reconsider the points of Mr X’s complaint that were already upheld, and therefore only considered the points that were either partially upheld or not upheld. It also considered the recommendations made.
34. The stage three review panel found:

• The Council had misled Mr X with information about his documents, and that it was not clear what had happened.
• The Council had given unclear information to Mr X and his family.
• Mr X’s behavior did not mitigate that the Council placed him in a placement which worsened his circumstances and prevented him from engaging with services. The panel commented that it had seen no consideration of how the Council had considered Mr X’s needs as highlighted by his EHCP and how this impacted his access to education.

35. The stage three recommended the Council:

• Apologise further to Mr X,
• Assess the financial impact to Mr X and his family,
• Review how it communicated in its complaint responses.

36. The Council offered Mr X a payment of £500 for distress, and a repayment of his mother’s travel costs over two years.
37. Mr X remained unhappy with the Councils responses and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

38. As previously explained in paragraphs 14 and 15, the Ombudsman does not normally reinvestigate the complaint but instead will review if the process was carried out without flaws.
39. Mr X has already said he feels the investigation covered all the issues he was raising, but the outcomes and recommendations from the Council following the stage three panel did not recognise the ongoing injustice to his housing and educational needs.
40. The Council has carried out a detailed investigation and review into Mr X’s complaint. I have not identified any serious or fundamental flaws to how the process was carried out. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council for how it carried out the statutory complaints process and I do not propose to reinvestigate the complaint.
41. I have therefore reviewed the Councils recommendations and remedies considering the fault found.
42. The Council upheld all of Mr X’s points of complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of how the Council has considered the impact and injustice caused by the fault identified. I have reviewed the recommendations and actions by the Council and have concluded they do not address the lasting injustice to Mr X for the reasons set out below.

Housing

43. Throughout his complaint, Mr X and his advocate have continually raised that he was placed in unsuitable accommodation by the Council.
44. The law says bed and breakfast accommodation is never suitable for young people aged 16 or 17.
45. While the Council has accepted the distress caused to Mr X by this, and offered him some support with getting housing, the Council has done little to reflect on the severity of the matter. The stage three panel found the Council placed Mr X in unsuitable accommodation and did not consider his needs when doing so. The Council also agreed to keep Mr X’s housing under review.
46. The law is clear that Councils should not place 16–17-year-olds in bed and breakfast accommodation. This means the time that the accommodation Mr X was in prior to turning 18 was automatically unsuitable. A Council can place 18-year-olds in bed and breakfast accommodation if it has reason to believe the accommodation is suitable. The Ombudsman has clear guidance on remedies for Councils to refer to when deciding remedies for unsuitable accommodation.
47. The Council has already upheld the bed and breakfast accommodation was unsuitable. In response to my previous draft decision, the Council has told me that Mr X remains in bed and breakfast accommodation. It is possible that once Mr X turned 18, the Council considered that the bed and breakfast accommodation was suitable for him. However, it is clear from Mr X’s complaint and his communication from his representative, that he felt his accommodation was not suitable.
48. The Council had accepted a main housing duty to Mr X, and as such, the suitability of his emergency accommodation carried a right of review. The Council should have carried out a suitability review of Mr X’s accommodation, and explained to him if it was suitable for him or not. Failure to do this was fault by the Council, causing Mr X distress and uncertainty.
49. Therefore, I am recommending the Council make a payment in recognition of the time Mr X spent in bed and breakfast accommodation until he turned 18 and delaying the suitability review. It should also carry out a suitability review, and if it finds Mr X has remained in unsuitable accommodation, it should pay a remedy for this as well.
50. It is my understanding that Mr X is placing highly when he bids for properties. As he is placing so highly, it is likely that if his assessments had not been delayed, he would have been given the choice to bid sooner. It is therefore reasonable to say he may have missed offers of permanent accommodation.
51. I do not want to override Mr X’s choice of where to live. With Mr X’s current circumstances in mind, I am recommending that as part of the suitability review, the Council meet with Mr X, his advocate, and his personal advisor to discuss whether a direct offer of accommodation would be suitable.

Education

52. The Council has also failed to remedy the impact of the fault on Mr X’s education and access to opportunities. Mr X continually raised this as part of the complaints process. It was upheld by the stage two and stage three, however no proactive remedy offered. Mr X did not have support or access to services and education for over two years.
53. It is my understanding that Mr X’s EHCP was reviewed, and Council offered Mr X the opportunity to attend college. However, he has declined this, as he wishes to attend a provider that has already offered a package of support.
54. In my previous draft decision, I recommended the Council provide an educational remedy to address the missed education and opportunities. The Council told me that Mr X currently has a programme of support in place in the form of therapeutic support and mentoring, and that his personal advisor is following up educational opportunities.
55. While I appreciate the Council has since put support in place for Mr X, this does not address the injustice caused to him by the lack of support for over two years without services and education. Therefore, my previous finding remains.
56. Mr X has a preferred programme and provider that he would like to access, which he feels would meet the outcomes and needs set out in his EHCP. I cannot say whether the provider Mr X has chosen is suitable, this will be for him and the Council to decide together. However, it would be unfair of the Council to not consider the loss of education and opportunity caused to Mr X during this process.
57. The Council should provide an educational remedy to address the missed education and opportunities. This could be in the form of funding the preferred provider, or offering additional education, or for funding to continue once the current funding runs out.

Further considerations

58. The Council has found the delay in assessments for Mr X meant there was a delay in deciding he has eligible care needs. However, it would be speculative to say how long the delay was as the outcome was dependant on several things. I can only reasonably say the delay caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X, which the Council has remedied with its offer of a distress payment.
59. The Council has offered Mr X a package of support for his eligible care needs, however he has said he cannot pay the top up fee needed.
60. When remedying injustice, the Ombudsman considers whether a practical remedy could address some of the injustice to the complainant. Mr X has said he cannot afford to pay the top up fees for his eligible care needs. It would therefore be reasonable for the Council to offer Mr X the choice of having the financial remedy recommended by the Ombudsman be used to pay Mr X’s contribution to his eligible care needs. Mr X can then make the decision if he would like to use the financial remedy for this or if he would rather use it for other reasons.
61. It is also clear from the complaints process that the different departments in the Council did not communicate clearly with each other about Mr X’s circumstances. This caused confusion for Mr X and the professionals involved, and caused further delay. At times, Mr X and his advocate have not known who to contact or raise issues with. This was fault by the Council, causing further uncertainty to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. Within 4 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mr X and apologise for failing to fully address the injustice caused to him because of the fault identified during the complaints process.
• Calculate a financial remedy amount based on £200 per week for every week Mr X was in bed and breakfast accommodation prior to turning 18 years old.
• Carry out a suitability review of Mr X’s current accommodation in line with his needs and meet with Mr X and his advocate to discuss any options open to him. If the Council identifies that the current accommodation is unsuitable, the Council should pay a financial remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for unsuitable accommodation.
• Provide Mr X with additional educational support in recognition of the two years he was without access. The Council should meet with Mr X and his advocate to discuss the options and funding level available to Mr X.
• Provide a single point of contact for Mr X and his advocate to discuss and raise concerns with and communicate important decisions for Mr X’s circumstances going forward.

63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to offer suitable remedies and recommendations following the conclusion of the stage three review panel.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman