Summary: Ms X complained about how she and her children were treated by the Council’s children’s social care service. We have found that the Council was at fault for a significant delay in its handling of
her complaint. This caused her an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address. However, we will not conduct a further investigation of Ms X’s complaint. An independent investigation has already found no fault in most of what the Council did. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issue would lead to a different outcome for Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about various ways in which the Council’s children’s social care service has failed her and her children.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. 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)
5. We provide a free service, but we must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
7. Ms X 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

8. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
9. Parents can use this procedure to complain about their children’s social care assessment and support.
10. If a complaint has already been through the statutory procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
11. We are not an appeal stage and do not simply add another independent investigation to the previous one as a matter of course. We will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed in a way which disadvantaged the complainant.
12. I have considered the documents from Ms X’s complaint, and I note that:
• A significant part of the 34-point complaint was about matters which were too old, had already been dealt with in court, or were otherwise not ‘complaints’ which could be dealt with under the statutory procedure.
• All other parts of the complaint were – where possible – considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigator had access to the Council’s records and referred to his consideration of those records where necessary.
• The investigator also interviewed the relevant staff members who still worked for the Council and clearly referred to those interviews in his consideration of the individual points of complaint.
• An independent panel reviewed the investigator’s findings and agreed with them in full.
• Although Ms X clearly (and vehemently) disagrees with the findings of the Council, the independent investigator and the panel, I have not identified anything which obviously undermines those findings to the extent that they may be unreliable.
• Although Ms X says she has relevant evidence in her possession which was not available to the investigator or the panel, and was invited to send us that evidence, she has not done so.
• Much of the complaint Ms X now brings to the Ombudsman is about matters which were not part of complaint which the Council dealt with under the statutory procedure (and which are, therefore, new complaints which I cannot look at).
13. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Miss X. So I will not do so.
14. The Council did, however, cause significant delays in answering Ms X’s complaint. It took over two years, and I am satisfied that it was responsible for around 11 months of delay during that period.
15. It is likely that this delay caused Ms X distress. I have made recommendations below to address this.
16. A large part of the Council’s delay was caused by a failure to quickly identify either an independent investigator or an independent panel. My recommendation on this point now follows.

Back to top

Action

17. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Write to Ms X, apologising for the significant delay in answering her complaint. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council should consider this guidance when writing to Ms X.
• Make a symbolic payment of £300 to Ms X to recognise the distress she was likely caused by the delay.
18. Within twelve weeks, the Council has agreed to write to us, setting out how it will overcome the substantial problems it faced finding an investigator and panel to look at Ms X’s complaint. In doing so, it will consider:
• The range of people who may be appointed to undertake stage 2 statutory complaint investigations, as summarised in paragraph 3.6.4 and Annex 1 of the statutory guidance, Getting the best from complaints.
• Actions it will take to expand the pool of investigators and panel members it can call upon to consider statutory complaints.
19. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

20. The Council was at fault for delays handling Ms X’s complaint. This caused her an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman