Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to recognise his immigration status when he was a looked after child and failed to renew his visa before it expired. Mr X said this meant he overstayed his visa and is unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain for some years. Mr X says, as a result, he cannot afford to go to university as he will be charged as an overseas student and the delays caused significant distress. Mr X would like the Council to meet his education costs. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the actions from the statutory complaint procedure. This frustrated Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, complete the actions from the statutory complaint process and provide guidance to its staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to recognise his immigration status when he was a looked after child and failed to renew his visa before it expired. Mr X said this meant he overstayed his visa and is unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain for some years. Mr X says, as a result, he cannot afford to go to university as he will be charged as an overseas student and the delays caused significant distress. Mr X would like the Council to meet his education costs.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Background information

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. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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

14. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
15. Mr X and his parents moved to the UK. A few years later the Council obtained an interim care order and placed Mr X in foster care. The Council did not renew Mr X’s visa which expired. The Council then instructed solicitors to apply for a visa for Mr X. Some years later the home office granted Mr X leave to remain but with no recourse to public funds. Mr X has now left care.
16. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council considered the complaint through the statutory complaints process. The Council issued its response in late 2023.
17. Mr X was not happy with the stage one response and asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. The investigation took from November 2023 until March 2024. The stage two investigation found the Council had not properly recorded Mr X’s immigration status when he became a looked after child. Consequently, the Council did not realise Mr X’s visa had expired. It then applied to renew Mr X’s visa, but the process was protracted. The Council issued the stage two response in July 2024. The investigation upheld all but one of Mr X’s complaints which it partially upheld. The Council offered to pay Mr X £100 for the delays. It also offered £2,000 for Mr X’s distress and worry.
18. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage three. The Council held the stage three review panel in August 2024. The panel upheld all Mr X’s complaints and made recommendations to the Council. These included recommendations to improve its record keeping, training on immigration protocols and a process to identify expiring visas. The recommendations also included the Council exploring what it could fund for Mr X’s education, living expenses and accommodation. It included exploring an application for full legal status and a plan for his future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.
19. The Council sent its stage three adjudication letter in September 2024. The Council agreed to the panel recommendations. The Council paid Mr X £100 for the delays. It then agreed to meet the costs of therapy for Mr X up to £2,000. The Council asked Mr X for invoices from the therapy provider to make the payments. The Council confirmed it would respond, in writing, to Mr X’s request about his plan for future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.
20. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X considers the recommendations do not put him back in the position he would have been in if the Council had renewed his visa on time. He considers he would have been able to obtain British citizenship if the Council had not overlooked the expiry of his visa. He considers the recommendations do not recognise he cannot afford to go to university as he will be charged as an overseas student and he cannot apply for a student loan. Mr X wants the Council to meet all the costs of attending university including his tuition fees and maintenance costs.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it was an oversight to not confirm the money was for therapy. The Council said it would make the payment. The Council confirmed it would review the plan and assist with immigration matters.

My findings

22. The statutory children’s complaint procedure is a statutory procedure the Council must follow. As set out in paragraph 12, where a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaint process, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
23. The IO conducted a thorough and detailed investigation on the matters in the statement of complaint. The IP oversaw the investigation. The IO spoke to Mr X and the Council officers involved in this matter. The IO also considered relevant documentation relating to Mr X’s complaint.
24. The IP addressed each of Mr X’s complaints and provided a decision on whether to uphold the complaint. Each decision was supported by the evidence available.
25. The stage three review considered the adequacy of the stage two investigation and reached findings on each element of Mr X’s complaint. It considered Mr X’s comments and representation.
26. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint procedure. I recognise this situation has been distressing for Mr X, but the decisions were taken without fault. I do not find fault with the Council for how it carried out the statutory complaints process and I do not propose to reinvestigate the complaint.
27. I have therefore reviewed the Councils recommendations and remedies considering the fault found.
28. The Council has rightly paid a remedy for the distress caused by the delayed complaint process.
29. The Council made nine recommendations following the complaint process. The recommendations were mainly service improvements. Three related to individual remedies. These were:
• Recommendation seven said the Council would explore what elements it could fund for Mr X regarding his education, living expenses, accommodation and application to secure his full legal status.
• Recommendation eight said the Council would respond to Mr X’s request in writing detailing his plan for the future regarding his access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.
• Recommendation nine said the Council should consider an apology. It noted the Council had apologised.
30. From these recommendations, the Council offered Mr X £2,000 and confirmed it would respond, in writing, to Mr X’s request about his plan for future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.
31. The Council has not provided evidence to show it has written to Mr X about these matters as it agreed it would. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.
32. The Council also said it would only cover therapy costs totalling the £2,000 it offered when Mr X had provided invoices. This was not in the original recommendation. The Council only said Mr X needed an invoice after the complaint process. This is fault. The Council accepted this, and has offered to make the payment to Mr X. This remedies the injustice caused by the Council fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by not completing the recommendations for the statutory complaint procedure. 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.
• Pay Mr X the £2,000 it agreed to in the statutory complaint process.
• Pay Mr X £200 as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble he has spent pursuing this complaint.
• Provide the written response it agreed to in the statutory complaint response.
• Remind relevant staff to complete the actions from complaints within a reasonable timescale.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman