Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s care of her when she was a looked after child and the way it handled her complaint. Miss X said she felt blamed for things that happened when she was a child. She said this affected her mental health, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s care of her when she was a looked after child and the way it handed her statutory complaint. Specifically she complained:
1. the Council failed to respond to her complaint within statutory timeframes;
2. the Council failed to properly update her;
3. the investigating officer was not independent because they had handled previous complaints for the Council;
4. the stage two report was biased; and,
5. the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint.
2. Miss X said she felt blamed for things that happened when she was a child. She said this affected her mental health, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress.

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 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)
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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I discussed Miss X’s complaint with her. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond to a complaint at stage one.
10. 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.
11. The guidance says an IO may be employed by the council or be brought in from outside the council. The IO should not be in direct line management of the service or person the complaint is about.
12. 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.
13. 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 request, the panel must issue its findings within five working days, and the council must issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
14. 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.
15. 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

16. In early 2024, Miss X complained to the Council about its care of her when she was a looked after child. The Council responded and did not uphold her complaint.
17. Miss X asked for stage two. The Council commissioned an investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP). The IO and IP issued their stage two reports. The IO did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. However, the IO did make two recommendations. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings.
18. Miss X asked for stage three.
19. The stage three review panel questioned the IO’s independence as they had previously been employed by the Council. The panel asked why the IO had not approached external services to contribute to the investigation. The panel said that while the IO had considered relevant evidence, they could have approached external services to provide a more holistic picture.
20. The panel accepted the stage two findings and did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. However, the panel made five recommendations.
21. The Council agreed with the stage three panel’s findings and the recommendations.
22. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Timeframes

23. Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint within statutory timeframes (part a of the complaint).
24. The Council sent its stage one response six weeks late. This is fault. This caused Miss X injustice because it caused uncertainty.
25. The Council completed stage two within the maximum 65 working days set out in the guidance. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
26. The Council held the stage three review panel a few days after the 30 working days set out in the guidance. I do not consider this is significant enough to constitute fault. The rest of the stage three process was completed within the timeframes.

Updates

27. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly update her (part b of the complaint).
28. The Council accepts that it did not always update Miss X during the complaints process as it should have. I find the Council at fault for this. This caused Miss X uncertainty which is injustice.

The investigating officer’s independence

29. Miss X complained the investigating officer (IO) was not independent because they had worked for the Council and had handled previous complaints Miss X made against the Council (part c of the complaint). She said the IO was biased.
30. The stage three review panel questioned the IO’s independence because the IO was previously employed by the Council. The IO told the Council they left the Council three years earlier.
31. As I have said above, the guidance says an IO may be employed by a council or be brought in from outside a council. The IO should not be in direct line management of the service or person the complaint is about.
32. There is nothing in the guidance that says an IO should not have dealt with previous complaints from a complainant before.
33. I find no fault with the Council for commissioning an IO who used to work for the Council. This was in line with the guidance. Also, I find no evidence of bias in the stage two investigation.

The stage two report

34. Miss X complained the stage two report was biased (part d of the complaint). She said the report blamed her for things that happened when she was a child.
35. I do not agree. I find the stage two report was based on fact supported by evidence. The stage two report detailed Miss X’s behaviour and lack of engagement with services. This was not the investigating officer’s opinion.
36. For these reasons, I do not consider the stage two report was biased or blamed Miss X for things that happened when she was a child. I therefore do not find fault.

The complaint investigation

37. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint (part e of the complaint).
38. Miss X said she had an hour-long conversation with the investigating officer (IO) and independent person. She said she could not possibly have spoken about her whole journey in care during this one hour.
39. I do not find fault for the length of the phone call. I understand that Miss X might have wanted to talk about her whole journey in care. However, I cannot criticise the IO for taking a proportionate approach regarding taking information from a complainant.
40. As I have said above, if a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. 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.
41. Miss X said part of her complaint about the investigation was that the IO did not contact outside agencies.
42. The stage three review panel found the IO could have approached external services to provide a more holistic picture. However, the panel also found the IO had considered relevant evidence. I agree.
43. I find the Council at fault for not approaching external services. However, I do not consider this is a significant flaw in the stage two investigation which could call the findings into question. Other than this, I find the stage two investigation was thorough, well-balanced and proportionate. For this reason, I do not consider this fault caused injustice.

The Ombudsman’s role

44. As I have said above, we may 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.
45. I find the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two investigation and the stage three review panel. I have therefore considered whether the Council completed the recommendations from stages two and three.
46. The stage two investigation made two recommendations. The Council accepts it delayed completing these. This is fault. I find this fault caused Miss X injustice because it caused her uncertainty.
47. I am satisfied the Council has now completed these stage two recommendations.
48. Miss X does not agree that the recommendations have been completed. She said the Council should have referred her for counselling.
49. The stage two recommendation was that the Council “considers signposting (but not funding) [Miss X] to an approved counseling organisation”.
50. In a letter to Miss X, the Council referred to this recommendation. The Council said the recommendation “was for [Miss X] to be signposted to appropriate counseling services”. This was not exactly what was recommended. I can understand if this caused confusion and led Miss X to believe the recommendation was for the Council to signpost her. This was not the case.
51. The Council considered signposting Miss X to a counselling service and spoke with her about what it could achieve. I find this meets the recommendation.
52. I find the Council completed the stage three recommendations appropriately.

Back to top

Action

53. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Miss X for the uncertainty caused by:
• sending the stage one complaint response six weeks late;
• failing to keep Miss X updated during the complaints process; and,
• the delay implementing the stage two recommendations.
54. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making this apology.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

56. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman