Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties towards her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council failed to involve her in discussions about her care planning and whether it could continue to accommodate her. Ms X also said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officer’s stage two report failed to fully address identified injustice to Ms X. We have also found the Council at fault for inconsistencies in its adjudication response and for failing to show it properly considered whether it needed consent to support Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s lost opportunity to benefit from the support of personal advisors at a critical time. The Council has also agreed to review its decision on whether Ms X should have kept her status as an eligible and relevant child.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties to her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council did not involve her in discussions about whether the Council had consent to provide her with accommodation. She said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. Ms X said this significantly affected her support and housing options.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Duty to provide accommodation

8. Councils have a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need in their area who appears to them to need accommodation because:
• there is no-one who has parental responsibility for the child;
• the child is lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for the child is prevented, whether permanently or temporarily and for whatever reason, from providing suitable accommodation or care.
9. The council may not provide accommodation in these circumstances if the person who has parental responsibility objects. It can either provide the accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided. A child accommodated in this way is a ‘Looked After Child’ (LAC). (Children Act 1989, section 20)

Consent

10. A council may not provide accommodation if the person who has parental responsibility objects. But children aged sixteen or over can consent to being accommodated by the council without their parents’ consent.

Leaving care

11. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser, and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal adviser will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. Plans should include specific actions and deadlines detailing who will take what action and when. They should be reviewed at least every six months by a social worker. 
12. Pathway plans should continue for all care leavers continuing in education or training. The plan should include details of the practical and financial support the council will provide. 
13. The guidance accompanying the Act says that when young people leave their care placement the council must ensure their new home is suitable for their needs and linked to their wider plans and aspirations. Moving directly from a care placement to living independently is often too big a step for young people. It is therefore good practice for councils to commission semi-independent and independent living options with appropriate support.

Role of the IRO

14. Children in care have an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who is responsible for ensuring councils adhere to children’s care plans. They also chair the child’s statutory review, which normally takes place every six months. These are multi agency meetings where important decisions are made.

Children’s Statutory Complaints Procedure

15. 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.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Councils do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to make the representation arose. In these cases, the Complaints Manager should write to advise the complainant that their complaint cannot be considered and explaining the reasons why he has adopted this position. This response should also advise the complainant of their right to approach the Local Government Ombudsman. However, these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis and there should generally be a presumption in favour of accepting the complaint unless there is good reason against it.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

22. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.

Background

23. In February 2022, when she was 16 years old, Ms X began living in a residential children’s placement, referred to in this statement as Placement J. The Council said it chose Placement J because it could provide Ms X with the help and support she needed.
24. In September 2022, Ms X was involved in an incident with another young person at Placement J. Placement J asked Ms X’s social worker to convene a meeting, to discuss its concerns and find ways to prevent Ms X’s placement breaking down.
25. In October 2022, the Council said a meeting took place at Placement J. At this meeting, Placement J said if Ms X engaged in similar behaviour again, this could lead to Placement J asking Ms X to leave.
26. On 3 November 2022, Placement J wrote to the Council to say Ms X had been involved in another incident. Placement J said when confronted, Ms X had damaged her room and left the premises.
27. On 4 November 2022, Placement J gave the Council seven days’ notice to end Ms X’s residency.
28. On 5 November 2022, the Council asked Placement J for an urgent stability meeting.
29. Between 7 and 9 November 2022, the Council decided the best choice was to try and salvage Ms X’s residency at Placement J. If this was not possible, the Council would try to find a similar setting. Ms X’s IRO said Ms X should be allowed to hear Placement J’s concerns and respond.
30. On 9 November 2022, the Council met with Placement J. Placement J would not consider Ms X remaining there. The Council had been unable to find a similar placement and did not support a semi-independent placement, though these were available. The Council decided Ms X should return to live with her mother, while it continued to search for a suitable placement.
31. On 11 November 2022, Ms X’s residency at Placement J ended. The Council’s records showed those working with Ms X decided not to tell her about this in advance. This was due to concerns about the impact this change would have on Ms X, if she had notice of it. Ms X was given around two hours’ notice to leave, then returned to live with her mother.
32. On 22 November 2022, the Council’s internal records showed questions about what support Ms X was receiving at home. Ms X’s social worker was asked to update Ms X’s pathway plan to reflect the change in circumstances.
33. On 24 November, Ms X complained to the Council:
1. Ms X complained about how her time at Placement J ended. She complained about the lack of communication, the short notice and disruption caused. Ms X said this disrupted her educational arrangements. She said the Council had not planned properly for this.
2. Ms X complained about Placement J’s conduct.
3. Ms X said she had not seen her IRO since September 2022. She said the Council should have allowed her to speak with her IRO and review her care plan. Ms X said she had never seen her pathway plan and now did not have one. Because of this, she did not know what her social care arrangements would be.
34. In December 2022, the Council’s internal records show concerns that a social worker had not contacted Ms X. There had also been no update on a new placement, no meetings, or an updated risk management plan. These concerns led to a visit by Ms X’s IRO and, later in the month, Ms X’s social worker. In late December 2022, senior officers sought updates about a new suitable placement for Ms X.
35. In January 2023, the Council’s records showed Ms X’s IRO asked whether Ms X remained a Looked After Child. On 18 January 2023, I understand the Council visited Ms X and her mother. I understand that at this meeting, it was decided Ms X would no longer be a Looked After Child but would remain open to social care as a Child In Need.
36. On 25 January 2023, the Council issued a partial stage one complaint response. This addressed Ms X’s complaints about education, contact with the IRO, and a further complaint about Ms X being unable to collect an award she had been nominated for.
37. In late January 2023, the Council’s internal records showed questions being asked about Ms X’s updated pathway plan, which was not on the system.
38. On 30 January 2023, the Council issued a further stage one complaint response, addressing the social care aspects of the complaint. Referencing the earlier meeting, the Council said Ms X’s mother had now withdrawn Section 20 consent and the Council could not provide Ms X with accommodation. It responded to Ms X’s concerns about how the residency at Placement J ended.
39. In February and March 2023, the Council’s records continued to show contradicting information about Ms X’s status as a Looked After Child.

Summary of stage two investigation

40. On 30 March 2023, Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council said it did not receive this escalation until 7 June 2023. On 15 December 2023, the Investigating Officer (IO) issued their report, detailing their findings and recommendations. The Independent Person (IP) issued their report on 17 December 2023. The Council issued its adjudicating response on 5 January 2024, completing stage two proceedings.
41. The IO investigated eight heads of complaint. Summarised:
1. Ms X complained the Council ended her residency at Placement J in an unfair way, contradicting good practice and legal requirements. The IO found Placement J had given the Council limited notice, making it impossible to arrange any review or care planning before the placement ended. The IO said Ms X had known about Placement J’s concerns, so would have been aware of the risks of engaging in similar incidents. The IO said not telling Ms X about the placement ending caused her distress. However, the IO found this had been a professional decision motivated by Ms X’s best interests. The IO did not uphold the complaint. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions.
2. Ms X complained her IRO had not been told about her residency at Placement J ending, meaning they could not effectively speak for her best interests. The IO found the IRO did not receive Placement J’s notice to end Ms X’s residency when it was sent. When the IRO received the notice, the IO found they had been active in trying to salvage Ms X’s residency at Placement J. The IO did not uphold this complaint. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions.
3. Ms X complained there should have been a Child in Care Review before her residency at Placement J ended, citing specific guidance that said this.
1. The IO found the cited guidance did not apply, because it was Placement J that ended the residency, rather than the Council. However, the IO found the Council should have considered holding a review after Ms X returned home, but there was no evidence this had happened. The IO said this was a missed opportunity to meaningfully engage Ms X with her care planning. The IO also said it led to uncertainty about what arrangements the Council would make for Ms X. The IO partially upheld this complaint. They recommended the Council remind officers of the need to consider holding a Child in Care review when a provider unexpectedly ended a placement. They also recommended the Council highlight the drift that occurred in Ms X’s case.
2. The Council did not agree with the IO’s findings and conclusions. It said it had raised this with officers in December 2023, but there was no prospect of holding a Child in Care Review now, as Ms X’s mother had withdrawn consent some time ago. The Council said officers had considered it at the time, but as Ms X’s mother had withdrawn consent, Ms X was no longer involved in the review process.
4. Ms X complained about the quality and tone of the stage one complaint response. The IO found the responding manager had been under pressure to close overdue complaints. This led to them not speaking with Ms X’s social worker about the complaint before responding. The IO found the complaint was not properly investigated and the response was poor. The IO upheld the complaint. They recommended the Council provide guidance to officers responding to complaints. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions.
5. Ms X complained she had not been afforded respect or dignity when the residency at Placement J ended. The IO upheld this complaint, citing the Council’s poor complaint response. The IO also said not holding a Child in Care Review after Ms X left Placement J was a significant oversight. Ms X had not been engaged in discussions about her care since November 2022. The IO recommended the Council provide a specific apology for this. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations.
6. Ms X complained she had no pathway plan.
1. The IO said the most recent plan on file was from August 2022. The IO found the plan should have been updated when Ms X left Placement J, but there was no evidence this happened. The IO upheld the complaint and recommended the Council review Ms X’s care. The IO said the Council should ensure Ms X had an up-to-date assessment that clearly outlined her needs and defined her status within the social care framework.
2. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. It said its records showed Ms X’s mother withdrew her consent on 9 November 2022. Having lived with her mother for six months, the Council said Ms X was now a qualified care leaver, rather than having eligible or relevant status. This meant Ms X was not entitled to a personal advisor, or a higher level of support. There was therefore no need for a pathway plan.
7. Ms X complained she had no personal advisor:
1. The IO found Ms X did not receive a personal advisor at the correct time due to staffing issues, getting an advisor a year late. The IO said the Council assigned two advisors to Ms X overall, but they completed no effective work with Ms X. The IO concluded there was uncertainty around when Ms X’s status of a child in care ended, so it could be argued she remained “eligible and relevant.” The IO also said it was unclear whether the Council explained to Ms X and her mother why it withdrew the advisor. The IO upheld this complaint. They recommended the Council review the date on which Ms X’s status changed from Child in Care to Child in Need. The IO said if this was as late as May 2023, which the records suggested may be the case, the Council should consider whether to reinstate Ms X’s status as eligible and relevant.
2. The Council accepted the IO’s findings and recommendations. The Council said it had reviewed when Ms X’s status as a Child in Care ended, as recommended. It said this ended on 9 November 2022, as Ms X’s mother withdrew section 20 consent on this date during a meeting with the team manager and social worker.
8. Ms X complained she had incurred costs installing software on a laptop the Council provided for her education. The IO upheld this complaint, also finding the Council delayed providing the laptop. The IO recommended the Council review the cause of the delay and cover Ms X’s costs. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations.
42. The Council offered Ms X a meeting to discuss the complaint further and explained how Ms X could escalate to the next stage of the statutory complaints procedure.
43. Ms X intended to escalate her complaint to the third and final stage of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council said it extended the deadline to escalate on two occasions, to 9 February and 8 March 2024. The Council said it did not receive an escalation request in these periods. It said it spoke with Ms X’s advocate on 11 March 2024 regarding a further extension, but this was never formally requested in writing. The advocate representing Ms X at the time took responsibility for failing to escalate Ms X’s complaints in a timely manner.
44. I understand the Council received Ms X’s request to escalate to the next stage of the procedure on 20 April 2024. The Council then responded to say it would not accept the request to escalate at that point. It said this was due to a failure to submit the escalation within the extended deadline and the momentum of the procedure now being lost. It said Ms X could approach the Ombudsman.

Analysis

The IO’s report

45. It is clear the IO understood the complaints subject to investigation. Each point of complaint is clearly defined. The report sets out the sequence of events, the evidence considered and conclusions drawn.
46. However, I have identified multiple instances where the IO identified injustice to Ms X, but where the resultant recommendations do not provide a remedy. Summarised:
1. Having upheld complaint 3, set out in paragraph 41c, the IO recommended the Council carry out a learning exercise and staff training. However, the IO also found the Council excluded Ms X from discussions about her future, after she had returned home from Placement J. The IO found the Council denied Ms X an opportunity to engage with care planning and have her voice heard, leading to uncertainty about next steps. Ms X’s loss of opportunity to engage in discussion about her future and the resultant uncertainty are injustices to Ms X. The IO report does not recommend any remedies for this injustice, leaving it unaddressed.
2. The IO upheld complaint 6, set out in paragraph 41f. The IO correctly identified the Council should have implemented a new plan when Ms X returned home, but failed to do so. This left Ms X without the opportunity to engage with planning, make her voice heard, understand her choices, and potentially make different decisions. This again caused significant uncertainty, which is an injustice to Ms X. The IO report identifies this injustice, but does not recommend any action to address it.
3. The IO report upheld complaint 7, set out in paragraph 41g. In doing so, the IO identified the Council delayed assigning Ms X a personal advisor by over a year. They also identified that despite the Council then appointing two personal advisors, they completed no effective work with Ms X. The IO therefore identified Ms X had been entitled to significant advice and support for over a year before leaving Placement J, but did not receive this. This loss of support and advice for such a prolonged period, at a critical time, is an injustice. We do not know how and if this support could have led to different outcomes for Ms X. This injustice is identified, but not addressed.

The Council’s adjudication response

47. I have identified the following concerns with the Council’s adjudication response:
1. The Council did not uphold complaint 3. It said too much time had now passed for it to gather a CIC meeting. It also said there had been no requirement for it to include Ms X in the review process, after she moved back with her mother. The Council’s response misinterprets the IO’s recommendation, which was to highlight the concerns to relevant officers and provide guidance. I therefore find the Council did not properly consider or respond to the IO’s recommendation.
2. The Council said Ms X’s mother withdrew section 20 consent on 9 November 2022. However, this contradicts the IO’s timeline. This states the Council visited Ms X and her mother on 18 January 2023 and agreed Ms X would no longer be considered a Looked After Child. The Council’s stage one complaint response also references this meeting.
3. Further, on consent, the Council does not note that when Ms X moved back to live with her mother, she was 16 years old. As paragraph 10 sets out, the Council does not require parental consent to arrange accommodation, if the child is over the age of 16. The Council’s reliance on Ms X’s mother withdrawing consent, as the rationale for its decision-making, may well be misplaced. Had the Council correctly accounted for Ms X’s age at the time, it is possible it would have reached different decisions.

Fault and injustice

48. The Council’s delay in appointing a personal advisor means Ms X lost the opportunity to benefit from advice and guidance, thus being better informed about her rights and the Council’s duties, at a critical time. I have recommended the Council act to recognise this loss of opportunity.
49. The Council’s adjudication response did not adequately consider and respond to the IO’s findings and conclusions on key matters. There are unaddressed inconsistencies between the IO report and adjudication response. Further, the Council has not shown it considered whether it actually needed parental consent to continue accommodating Ms X. I have found the Council at fault for these matters.
50. These faults caused Ms X an injustice. The unaddressed inconsistencies call into question parts of the Council’s response, creating uncertainty. Further, the Council’s position on consent needs further examination, given it relied on Ms X’s mother withdrawing consent for much of its decision-making. If the Council misunderstood these requirements, this may have resulted in the Council taking a different decision. This causes further uncertainty, which is an injustice to Ms X. I have recommended the Council act to address and remedy this uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

51. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of the loss of opportunity caused by the delay in the Council appointing Ms X with personal advisors. This remedy accounts for Ms X’s age at the time, her vulnerability, and that the advisors completed no effective work with Ms X, once appointed.
3. Review its decision on whether Ms X should have retained relevant and eligible status, and so should now be considered a former relevant child. In doing so, the Council should:
1. consider and address the matters identified in this statement: the impact of its lack of planning at a critical time; the inconsistencies in its adjudication response; and its failure to show it considered whether it needed consent to continue supporting Ms X.
2. provide a written decision to Ms X. In doing so, the Council should clearly explain the reasons for its decision and ensure it fully addresses the matters above.
3. ensure its written decision provides Ms X with the right to bring her complaint back to the Ombudsman if she is dissatisfied with the Council’s consideration and explanation.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman