Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council considered his complaint about his care during his childhood. Mr X said he suffered a significant impact on his mental health which affected his ability to work and left him with substantial debts. We have found fault by the Council in terms of delay and not properly considering an appropriate remedy but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council considered his complaint about his care during his childhood. Mr X complains the process took too long, did not cover all the matters he had complained about and the outcome did not properly address the recommendations made or provide an adequate remedy. Mr X says because of the Council’s fault he has suffered a significant impact on his mental health which affected his ability to work and left him with substantial debts.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I read the papers provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.
5. 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

Background

6. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2021 about the Council’s decision not to investigate his complaint. We ended our involvement in May 2022 as the Council agreed to open an historical child protection investigation. Mr X brought his current complaint back to the Ombudsman in November 2023.
7. I have set out below a summary of events from the end of our involvement in May 2022. It does not include everything that happened.

Key events

8. The independent investigator commissioned by the Council to undertake the investigation advised the Council in September 2022 about difficulties in contacting Mr X. Councils appoint each care leaver with a Personal Advisor (PA) to act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. Mr X’s PA was able to arrange contact between Mr X and the independent investigator. The Council also requested a local advocacy service to recontact Mr X as he had suggested he wanted this support.
9. Mr X met with the independent investigator in October. Mr X contacted the Council in March 2023 about progress on the investigation. Mr X’s PA contacted him in April with an update. Mr X raised an issue about his savings as a child in care.
10. The Council received a report from the independent investigator at the end of April 2023. This noted the investigation process had been lengthy due to the amount of available information, the consent needed to access some information and a decision to stop parts of the investigation while the police investigated Mr X’s allegations about his care in two youth secure training centres. It was also noted that Mr X had made a Subject Access Request for his care files and had found the volume of paperwork overwhelming and the content difficult to read.
11. On receiving the report, the Council noted further work was needed to try and access files from a particular residential care home. The Council contacted Mr X in May to try and arrange a meeting with him and his PA. Mr X did not attend a pre-arranged meeting. The Council contacted Mr X’s advocate in May and met with Mr X in June to discuss the investigation and next steps. The Council also hand delivered a letter dated 1 June at the above meeting which set out a summary of the investigation report’s findings and 14 recommendations. The Council confirmed it would progress the recommendations provided to date and phase 2 of the investigation involving the residential care home. The 14 recommendations were as set out below and I have included the Council’s response to each for ease of reading:

1. Care leavers should be provided with appropriate support when reading through their case files. This should be undertaken by the council, or an independent advocate and it should be made clear as to how this support is offered.

The Council has confirmed it now ensures all young people reading through their files are offered either the support of their PA or an advocate.

2. The Council should formally write to (the particular residential care home) to request all the documents produced during (Mr X’s) placement to support finalising of this investigations.

The Council has explained it attempted contact with the particular residential home but the organisation was closed down and it was unable to obtain any additional information.

3. The Council’s Corporate Feedback Team or an independent advocate should support (Mr X) in reviewing these documents.

The Council was not able to obtain any additional documents and so could not progress this recommendation.

4. It would be appropriate to formally apologise to (Mr X) for any failings identified to date. The evidence indicates (Mr X) was not afforded the opportunity to have his concerns formally investigated at the time. It is advised that this is undertaken face to face and followed up in writing.

The Council apologised in its letter to Mr X of 25 June 2024 and had offered a meeting.

5. An offer to (Mr X) should be made to review his case file with an appropriately trained person.

The Council offered the support of an advocate to Mr X.

6. The Council should consider an appropriate recompense once the documents from (the particular residential care home) are received to conclude the investigation, for those experiences and the time and efforts (Mr X) has made in making these complaints and the impact upon him.

The Council did not consider it should make a payment for the impact of Mr X’s childhood experiences on his mental health and ability to work which had led to him accruing debts and provided its reasons in its final decision letter of 25 June 2024.

7. The Haringey Safeguarding Children Partnership should consider a Learning Review into the circumstances of (Mr X’s) care. This should involve all relevant agencies.

The Council requested this action.

8. The report will be sent to the Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care for review.

This action was completed.

9. The Council should share the completed report with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and formally write to (Mr X) at this stage to share the available findings and recommendations of the report.

This action was completed.

10. This report should be shared with (Mr X) alongside an independent advocate from Open Door or Barnardo’s. The report is likely to trigger an emotional response from (Mr X) and therefore he should be offered therapeutic input to support his emotions and feelings.

The Council has advised Open Door were not able to provide this service. The Council explored alternative options to support Mr X including through his advocate.

11. The Council should consider the other complaints made by (Mr X) about his care experience but ensure these are time bound and focussed on specific issues.

This action was completed with the outcomes set out in the Council’s final response of 25 June 2024.

12. The Council should ensure they seek the outcomes following the conclusion of the police investigation into (Mr X’s) experiences in the secure estate.

The police decided they were not able to take forward any criminal investigation.

13. The Council is encouraged to review the commissioning arrangements for children’s residential care and ensure that restraint and restrictions on children’s liberty are fully investigated and legally sound.

This action was being progressed by the Head of Service of the Council’s Engagement, Safeguarding and Quality Assurance Service.

14. The Council should seek assurance that Looked After Children are offered independent advocacy at Looked After Child Reviews.

This action has been taken forward by Head of Service of our Engagement, Safeguarding and Quality Assurance Service.

12. The Council contacted Open Door advocacy project in June about possible support for Mr X but were advised it did not cover the area Mr X now lived.
13. The Council wrote to Mr X with the outcome of its review of his savings account in July and arranged for the outstanding amount to be credited to his bank account.
14. The Council contacted Mr X’s advocate in October about support for Mr X to read his files if he wished for this support. Mr X’s PA contacted Mr X’s GP in November about making a mental health referral and visited Mr X to provide an update.
15. The Council made attempts to arrange a meeting with Mr X during December. Mr X did not attend a planned meeting with the Council’s Head of Service.
16. The Council subsequently emailed a summary of the investigation report to Mr X in December. This was after further unsuccessful attempts to access the residential care home records. This report included 12 recommendations as set out below and I have again included the relevant updates provided:

1. Care leavers are to be provided with appropriate support when reading through their case files. This would be undertaken by the council, or an independent advocate and it should be made clear as to how this support is offered. The Council has confirmed that Children’s Services now ensure all young people reading through their files are offered either the support of their PA or an advocate.

2. Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs), social workers and social work line managers will review incident reports and restraint records as part of the looked after child review process and seek assurances as to how behaviour is managed effectively. The Council has confirmed this procedure is now in place.

3. Both the home and host Local Authority Designated Officer have already agreed how to progress any referral or allegation of harm regarding a young person placed into residential care in another part of the country.

4. The Council will request copies of Regulation 44 visit reports for the children placed in residential care and review these on a regular basis to identify themes around restraints, complaints and quality of care. The Council has confirmed this procedure is now in place.

5. The Haringey Safeguarding Children Partnership will consider a Learning Review into the circumstances of Mr X’s care. This should involve the Integrated Care Board Commissioners, the IRO Service and the particular care home. The Council requested this action.

6. The investigation report will be reviewed by the Assistant Director (AD) of Children’s Social Care for consideration of any additional actions. The report was provided to the AD who directed further attempts were needed to seek access to the records from the particular residential home but these were unsuccessful as the organisation had closed.

7. The Council will share this report with the Local Government Ombudsman and formally write to Mr X at this stage to share the findings of the report. This action was completed.

8. This report will be shared with Mr X alongside an independent advocate from Open Door. The report is likely to trigger an emotional response from Mr X and therefore he should be offered therapeutic input to support his emotions and feelings. The Council has advised Open Door were not able to provide this service. The Council explored alternative options to support Mr X including through his advocate. The Council’s Head of Service arranged to meet with Mr X to share the report, but Mr X did not attend this meeting.

9. The Council will consider the other complaints made by Mr X about his care experience but ensure these are time bound and focused on specific issues. The Council addressed the following matters raised by Mr X:

• review of savings
• an explanation of how Mr X was returned to the care of his father
• request for a copy of a particular letter sent to a judge
• a query about medication
• a query about a file reference to gang association
• a query about financial support requested in September 2021
• a query about a visit requested in July 2017
• a query about a member of staff delaying access to files

10. The Council will ensure that they seek the outcomes following the conclusion of the police investigation into Mr X’s experiences in the secure estate. The Council confirmed the police had decided to take no further action.

11. The Council have now reviewed the commissioning arrangements for children’s residential care and ensure that restraints and restrictions on children’s liberty are fully investigated and legally sound.

12. The Council will ensure that Looked After Children are offered independent advocacy at Looked After Child Reviews. The Council has confirmed this is now in place.

17. The Council confirmed it planned to adopt and implement the series of recommendations made by the independent investigator. In relation to the recommendations personal to Mr X the Council stated it would:
1. Offer Mr X a full apology from a senior manager in Children’s Social Care for not being afforded an opportunity to have his concerns formally investigated at the time.

The Council provided an apology from its Head of Service to Mr X in its letter of 25 June 2024 and had offered a face-to-face meeting.

2. Review case records with PA so that statements about him are appropriately rectified, and captured in language that cares.

The Council has highlighted it cannot legally amend the records held. However, it has now implemented the guidance to all practitioners on the use of language.

3. Offer opportunity to review case file with an appropriately trained person so that Mr X is able to fully understand the impact on him of reading his history and what professionals stated about him.

The Council has explained it attempted to support Mr X to engage with his advocate to support him to review his records and to support him to access therapeutic support services.

4. Consider an appropriate financial remedy for the distress and upset caused to Mr X identified in investigation and impact on him of his continued pursuance of the complaints process. The Council provided the reasons for its decision not to offer such a financial remedy in its final response to Mr X of 25 June 2024.
4. Mr X also raised additional matters with the Council during this period as he completed his review of his care records. The Council sought to address these additional issues as set out above and in its final outcome letter of 25 June 2024 (see below).
5. The Council offered a meeting with Mr X in January 2024. The Council provided an update in relation to some of the other issues Mr X had raised in February. The Council arranged meetings with Mr X in February and March which Mr X did not attend.
6. The Head of Service discussed Mr X’s remaining concerns with him by telephone in early June. The Council wrote to Mr X on 25 June with its final response to his complaint. This letter set out details of the Council’s actions to address each of the 14 recommendations included in the independent investigation report and the additional issues raised by Mr X. The Council confirmed it was open to Mr X to ask for an independent investigator to be appointed to investigate the specific complaint he had made about a named social worker. The Council provided an apology for the failings identified in the report. The Council also reviewed the delay in making the outstanding savings payment to Mr X and offered the additional sums of £200 towards the missed interest on the amount paid and £100 to reflect the delay. The Council did not consider it should make a payment for the impact of Mr X’s childhood experiences on his mental health and ability to work which had led to him accruing debts. The Council referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies in relation to how loss of earnings is usually considered. This sets out the difficulty even, on balance, of establishing a clear and causal link between any fault and the claimed injustice of lost earnings given the impact of other factors and that the Ombudsman considered such payments were best resolved by the courts. The Council’s letter advised Mr X if he remained unhappy with the outcome of the historic child protection review he should seek his own legal advice to consider taking legal action against the Council.
7. The Head of Service discussed the above letter with Mr X in July and he confirmed he had put the matter in the hands of a solicitor.

Analysis

22. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, the focus of our investigations in the event of a complaint will focus on whether the correct process was followed, if there was delay and whether the remedy offered by the Council was in line with our published guidance.
23. For this reason, I do not intend to revisit the historical investigation or comment on the findings reached about the child protection aspects of Mr X’s concerns. The independent investigator undertook a thorough and detailed investigation into these matters and I am satisfied the findings they reached were sound and the recommendations made were appropriate.
24. The above process identified the Council was at fault and made recommendations which the Council in most cases properly considered and acted on where needed. Although the Council was not able to complete some of the recommendations in the way anticipated it has provided cogent reasons for any departure which I have mostly accepted.
25. However, I am concerned about the time taken. The Council agreed to start the investigation in May 2022 and it was not completed until June 2024. I have taken into account the issues highlighted in the independent investigator’s report that led to the time taken to reach that point, the further attempts to obtain additional records, and the additional issues raised by Mr X. However, I consider there was avoidable delay in progressing this matter. I am satisfied this delay will have caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty during an already difficult period. The Council was at fault for failing to provide a suitable remedy for that injustice.
26. I am also concerned about the Council’s approach to the independent investigator’s recommendation for an appropriate financial remedy. The Council accepted the failings identified in the report and provided an apology. However, in terms of the recommended financial remedy it focussed on Mr X’s claimed injustice relating to his lost earnings. There is no evidence it properly considered a payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X from the accepted failings.
27. I acknowledge it can be difficult to distinguish between injustice that is the direct consequence of fault, and wider distress caused by a complainant’s situation. However, in the particular circumstances of this complaint, I consider a symbolic payment should be made to Mr X to acknowledge the impact of the accepted failings identified in the investigation report.
28. Finally, although I accept Mr X’s care records cannot be amended, the Council should ensure a copy of the independent investigation report and a copy of the Council’s outcome letter of 25 June 2024 are added as an addendum to reflect the finding that the language used was not always appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council will take the following action to provide a suitable remedy to Mr X within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Mr X to apologise for the delay in completing the investigation into his complaint;
2. pay Mr X £500 for the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by its delay in completing its investigation of his complaint;
3. pay Mr X £1,500 to acknowledge the impact of the failings identified in the independent investigator’s report; and
4. ensure a copy of the independent investigation report and a copy of the Council’s outcome letter of 25 June 2024 are added to Mr X’s care records as an addendum to reflect the finding that the language used in the care records was not always appropriate.
30. 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.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action above provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman