Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Y, a looked after child. She says the Council failed to properly consider Y’s complaint about its handling of a child in care review and how Y’s placement dealt with their belongings. The Council failed to properly consider Y’s stage one complaint and the impact of its failings on Y. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Y and ensure it carries out the identified service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of Y, a looked after child. She says the Council failed to properly consider Y’s complaint about its handling of a child in care review and how Y’s placement dealt with their belongings. Y says this has caused them distress and frustration, and they feel like the Council does not care about them. They want the Council to compensate them for the impact of its failings.

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)
4. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedure

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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 working days of the date of request and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
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. Y has been in the care of the Council since 2022. Y left a care placement in late 2022, when the home felt it could no longer keep Y safe. On 2 January 2023 Y complained to the Council with the support of Ms X. They said staff at Y’s previous placement had damaged some of Y’s items when packing their belongings. They added that some items remained missing, and Y had not been allowed to take other items with them.
16. On 31 January, Y also complained about the Council’s handling of a child in care review in 2022. They said the Council had ignored Y’s view about the meeting location, which Y found unsuitable. They said the Council had failed to contact Y before the meeting and then continued the meeting when Y became distressed and had to leave. Y said this meeting caused the breakdown in their placement.
17. The Council met with Y to discuss their complaints in February 2023. On 9 March 2023 it wrote to Y about the child in care review. It set out what it had discussed with Y and actions it had agreed to but did not make any findings on Y’s complaint. The Council responded to Y’s complaint about their belongings on 28 March 2023. It said it was clear the way staff had handled Y’s belongings had caused Y distress and said it would support people to pack their own belongings in future. It clarified which items did not belong to Y and said it would ensure this was clearer going forward. It said staff had not been able to locate most of the missing items but would return those they had found. The Council did not make any findings in its stage one response to Y’s complaint about their belongings.
18. Y asked the Council to consider their complaint at stage two of the statutory process on 13 July 2023. The Council appointed an independent investigating officer (IO) and independent person (IP) on 31 July. They were not able to meet Y to discuss the complaint until October 2023. Y confirmed their statement of complaint on 23 November 2023. They reiterated their complaint about their belongings and said they did not feel the Council had responded properly to their complaint about the child in care review.
19. The IO finished their stage two report on 27 December 2023. They upheld Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the child in care review. They said the Council had:
• Failed to seek Y’s views ahead of the review.
• Not listened to Y’s view that the location was unsuitable.
• Failed to discuss who Y wanted to attend the review.
20. The IO said this lack of planning led to Y not being able to continue with the meeting, which the Council should have stopped.
21. On Y’s complaint about their belongings, the IO found the Council had failed to pack Y’s belongings with care. However, they did not uphold Y’s complaint about being promised they could take items that belonged to the home. They said they could not make a finding about the number of items missing and whether the Y had to pay for their own trainers. They said the Council had still not returned the missing items staff had since found.
22. The IO recommended the Council review its practice around arranging child in care reviews, consider a quality assurance exercise and develop good practice for its children’s homes around the handling of young people’s belongings. They said the Council should ensure it returned the missing items it had found to Y and replace a broken mirror. The IO said the Council should consider financial compensation for Y. The IP agreed with the IO report.
23. The Council issued its stage two adjudication on 13 March 2024. It agreed with the stage two report and recommendations and offered Y a £30 voucher for the missing items. Y remained unhappy and asked for a stage three panel.
24. The Council attempted to host a stage three panel on 10 May 2024 but had to abandon the panel as Y was unable to attend. The Council also had to abandon another child in care review on 29 May 2024 due to further communication failures with Y. The stage three panel took place on 25 July 2024. The panel agreed with most of the stage two findings. It said the confusion over what items belonged to Y was a difference of memory and made no finding, but said the Council had still failed to return the found missing items to Y.
25. The stage three panel recommended the Council make a symbolic payment to Y in line with our Guidance on Remedies. It said the Council should learn from Y’s complaint and return their possessions immediately. The Council issued its stage three response on 28 August 2024. It repeated its apology and said it had already arranged for £210 of shopping vouchers and to refund £100 Y spent on a mirror. It said it would also:
• Pay for Y’s first ten driving lessons once Y had applied for a provision licence and theory test. This was in line with its local offer for care leavers.
• Pay Y £250 to recognise the impact of its mistakes.
• Return Ys items by September 2024.

It said it had agreed an action plan for Y’s future and changes to its policies and procedures.

My findings

Handling of Y’s complaint

26. The Council responded to Y’s stage one complaint about the child in care review within 27 working days. It responded to Y’s stage one complaint about their belongings after 60 working days. This delay was fault and caused Y a period of uncertainty. When the Council did respond at stage one of the statutory process it failed to make findings on either complaint. This was fault and caused Y further uncertainty, frustration, time and trouble.
27. The Council took 171 working days to respond at stage two of the statutory process from when Y made their stage two complaint, to when the Council issued its adjudication. Within this there was a delay of 83 working days while the IO and IP arranged to meet with Y and define their complaint. It is clear there were aspects of Y’s complaint that Y found distressing. I consider it acceptable the IO and IP took their time meeting with Y and defining Y’s complaint. When this delay is removed the Council still took slightly more than 65 working days to respond to Y’s complaint, but I do not consider this to be fault. The Council continued to progress Y’s complaint while being mindful of the impact of its investigation on Y.
28. The Council made every effort to arrange Y’s stage three panel within the statutory timescales, but had to rearrange the panel as Y could not attend. The Council issued its stage three response within 20 working days of the panel. The Council is not at fault.

Impact on Y and proposed remedy

29. The Council accepted the stage two and stage three findings. I have not re-investigated Y’s complaint but have looked at whether the Council properly considered the findings of the statutory process and the adequacy of the Council’s proposed remedy.
30. The Council has offered Y a financial remedy. Ms X has explained that Y does not feel the Council’s response is adequate. Y feels the abandoned May 2024 child in care review, and the prolonged delay in returning their belongings, shows the Council has not learned lessons from their complaint. They say the failed child in care review from 2022 led to them moving placement and not being able to sit their GCSEs.
31. Y’s 2022 placement broke down as the home did not feel it could keep Y safe and ended the placement. While the IO report upholds Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the child in care review, it does not identify a link between that and the break down in Y’s placement. I cannot say the failings in this case resulted in Y moving placement and not being able to sit their GCSEs.
32. It is clear the identified fault has impacted Y. The mishandling of the child in care review caused Y significant distress and was repeated in May 2024. The broken and missing items also caused Y distress, and the Council had still not returned the items by the stage three panel, 18 months after Y’s original complaint. In addition to this, the Council failed to properly consider Y’s complaint at stage one of the statutory process. It failed to make any findings and missed an opportunity to put things right for Y earlier in the complaint process.
33. The Council has repeatedly apologised and offered Y a financial remedy to recognise the impact of its failings. However, having reviewed the Council’s response, on balance, I do not consider the Council has properly considered the findings of the statutory process and has failed to properly consider the impact of its failings on Y. The Council should repeat its original remedy offered at stage three of its complaint process. I have made additional recommendations to remedy the injustice to Y.

Back to top

Action

34. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Y for its failure to properly consider her stage one complaint and the additional impact of its failings on Y. 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.
2. Pay Y an additional £250 to recognise the impact of its delayed response to Y’s stage one complaint and its failure to make findings on the stage one complaint.
3. Pay Y £250 to recognise the additional impact of its failings on Y.
4. Provide an update on its progress against its action plan for Y agreed in its stage 3 complaint response.
35. Within three months of the final decision. The Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an update on the changes to its practice standards and the quality assurance work agreed in its stage two adjudication.
2. Provide an update on the changes to its policies and procedures around ownership of items in placements agreed in its stage three response.
3. Review its approach to stage one statutory complaints to ensure its findings on each complaint are clear.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman