Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his concerns about his children and maintain his contact with them. The Council found fault during its complaints process but failed to carry out the recommendations agreed. The Council has therefore agreed to carry out the recommendations from the complaints process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider his concerns about the care and wellbeing of his children.
2. Mr X also complains the Council has failed in its duty to maintain contact between him and his children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Council and information he provided. I also considered information from the Council.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft of my decision and considered any comments received.

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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
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 investigating officer (IO) to investigate the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

15. 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.
16. 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

17. Mr X currently has children in care. The Council is responsible for the care of the children, and for arranging the contact between Mr X and his children.

Stage one complaint

18. Mr X complained to the Council. In his complaint he said:

• The Council needed to review the funding package for his children, as he was providing money for the things the funding should be paying for, and the items the children had needed to be replaced.
• The Council needed to tell him what it was providing the children with when starting school.
• The Council needed to review the children’s sleeping arrangements as they were unsafe.
• The Council needed to provide an update on Mr X’s request for the children to visit him.
• The Council needed to improve communication between Mr X and the children.

19. The Councils first complaint response said:

• The allowance for the children meets their needs, and there is no set rate because their needs differ. The Council was not concerned about the items the children had.
• The Council supplies funding for school uniform and equipment
• The Council is satisfied the sleeping arrangements do not pose a risk to the children.
• There was a delay in responding to Mr X’s request for the children to visit him. However, there is a lot to consider and Mr X should continue to discuss this with the social worker.
• It upheld there had been poor communication between Mr X and the social worker.

Stage two complaint

20. Mr X asked the Council consider his complaint at stage two, and expanded the complaint to include issues about:

• Not informing Mr X of concerns about the children.
• Allowing the children to be supervised by an unsuitable person.
• Not telling Mr X when the social worker changed and insensitive comments from the new social worker.
• Conflicting information given in the stage one response.
• The Council had failed in its duty as a corporate parent for several reasons.

21. The Council appointed an independent person (IP) and independent officer (IO) to consider Mr X’s complaint at stage two.
22. The IO upheld or partially upheld that:

• The Council had not properly communicated concerns about the children to Mr X.
• Some of the children’s clothing needed replacing but this had been addressed.
• There had been poor communication between Mr X and a previous social worker, and a delay in telling Mr X of the change in social worker, and delay in communication with the new social worker. The new social worker had also failed to provide Mr X with meeting records.
• The Social worker should have been more sensitive during conversations with Mr X.
• The stage one response gave conflicting information about Mr X’s request for the children to visit him.
• The Council should have addressed and provided support for the children’s bedrooms sooner.
• There had been issues in arranging and maintaining contact between Mr X and the children, and the communication about this had been poor.

23. The IO did not uphold:

• The Council had not discussed Mr X’s concerns about clothing with the foster carer
• It had unnecessarily ordered supervised contact, and the supervisor was suitable.

24. The IO did not reach a finding on:

• Whether the Council had allowed a previous unsuitable person to supervise the children.
• Whether the previous social worker had discussed Mr X’s request for the children to visit with their manager.

25. The IO recommended that:

• The Council promote contact between Mr X and the children and develop a plan for this moving forward.
• Provide an apology for the failings identified.
• Provide Mr X with a copy of the requested meeting records.
• Provide evidence of the children’s living conditions.
• Address the specific concerns Mr X had.
• Consider the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for the distress caused.

26. The IP reviewed the IO’s findings and recommendations. The Council then adjudicated the IP's report and agreed. It offered Mr X £700 in recognition of the distress caused to him.

Stage three review panel

27. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s consideration of his complaint and asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three.
28. The Council appointed a stage three review panel. It was not the role of the review panel to reinvestigate the complaint, but to decide whether the stage two had been carried out properly.
29. The Stage three review panel upheld the findings of the stage two. It commented that it had not seen anything that would call into question the findings and conclusions of the stage two investigation and was satisfied the complaint was appropriately investigated.
30. However, it recognised that some of the recommendations had not been successful or needed further work to ensure they were robust enough to address the injustice.
31. The stage three recommended:

• The Council provide Mr X with a further update on the actions from the Stage two.
• The Council should revisit the working arrangement to consider any further flexibility.
• Consider how to provide feedback to Mr X about the children.
• Explain why it had not provided an apology to the children.
• Send Mr X records of meetings dating back to January 2021.

32. The stage three also recognised there had been a delay in the complaint process and recommended the Council pay Mr X a financial remedy for this.
33. The Council’s final response to Mr X agreed with the findings of the stage three and the recommendations. It offered Mr X a further £50 as well as the previous £700 to recognise the further delay caused in the complaints process.
34. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

35. For the reasons previously set out in paragraphs 15 and 16, the Ombudsman will not reinvestigate complaints that have already been considered through the statutory complaints process, unless there is reason to believe the process was flawed.
36. I have not seen any evidence the complaints process was flawed. The findings in the stage two and stage three were clear, reasoned and evidenced. The Council has explained how it reached its view, and the reasoning for this. I uphold the fault already found and accepted by the Council and see no good reason to reinvestigate the contents of the complaint.
37. I have therefore considered if the recommendations address the injustice caused to Mr X.
38. The remedies identified by both the stage two and the stage three sought to address the injustice to Mr X and the children by providing practical actions and updates. The Council has also referred to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies when considering a financial payment in recognition of distress to Mr X.
39. I am satisfied the recommendations and actions by the stage two and the stage three are suitable to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.
40. There was fault by the Council, as identified during the complaints process, but it has already proposed the most suitable actions to remedy this.
41. However, Mr X says the Council has not yet completed the recommendations, nor has he received the financial remedy.
42. In response to my draft decision, the Council disagreed that it had not carried out the recommendations, but said it was not able to provide evidence of doing so. It also said Mr X had not responded to the financial remedy. As the Council has not been able to evidence it carried out the actions it should have, I am recommending the Council complete the recommendations, and provide evidence of doing so.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Carry out any outstanding actions from the stage two and stage three investigations. Where there has been a delay in doing so, it should apologise to Mr X and provide a reason for doing so. This should include the financial remedy to Mr X.

44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has carried out all the agreed recommendations and actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council, however the Council has already agreed to provide suitable remedies for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman