Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the involvement of the Council’s Children’s Services with his family and decisions made. An independent investigation has already investigated the Council’s actions. The Council has offered Mr X a suitable remedy for the upheld parts of his complaint. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issues would lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council’s Children’s Services have been involved with his family and made decisions which have caused distress and impacted on the family. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mr X considers his concerns have not been addressed causing further distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. Mr 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

Statutory Complaints process

5. 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.
6. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. 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) and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 days of the date of request and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

10. 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 unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at 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.

Background

11. What follows is a summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
12. In 2020 the Council removed Mr X’s three children from his care under an Interim Care Order approved by the courts and placed in foster care. The courts later agreed over the next few years his children could return to live with Mr X under a Care Order. In 2023 the Council considered discharging the Care Order. But the Council became aware Mr X’s new partner, Ms Y was pregnant. It told Mr X it needed to carry out assessments on himself and two of his children before it could consider discharging the Care Order. Mr X’s older child was now 18 so no longer subject to a Care Order.
13. The Council held an Initial Child Protection Conference about the unborn child in November 2023, and the child was made subject to a Child Protection Plan. When the child was born in 2024 the Council made an interim Care Order and placed the child in foster care. A judge later ordered the child be returned to the care of Ms Y.

Stage 1

14. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2024 about the Council’s involvement with his family and the distress caused. Mr X considered the Council’s involvement in the lives of his family members unwarranted and based on inaccurate information. The Council responded at stage 1 of the Complaints procedure. It sent two responses. The first considered Mr X’s complaints including, in summary, the delay in discharging the Care Orders for his older children, the involvement of social workers with the family, his refusal to engage with further assessments and other concerns. The second letter responded to Mr X’s concerns about the safeguarding action being taken over his unborn child.

Stage 2

15. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s responses and asked to go to Stage 2 of the Complaints procedure. The Council appointed an independent person (IP) and investigating officer (IO) to investigate the complaint in July 2024. A statement of complaint was written in July 2024 which Mr X added to and approved in August 2024. The IO held an interview with Mr X. The IO and IP interviewed two of Mr X’s children and Council officers involved in the case. The IO and IP considered the Council’s records and documents from Mr X.
16. The IO report was finalised at the end of October 2024. The IO noted it was 51 working days from the date which the statement of complaint was agreed. It had not been possible to complete the investigation within 25 working days. The IO had been in contact with Mr X to explain the need for an extension and cause of the delay. Mr X had 25 heads of complaint. Mr X’s desired outcomes included the Council ceasing to have any involvement with his family and for it to acknowledge its failings and apologise. The IO report upheld two of Mr X’s complaints and partly upheld four complaints. These were:
• The Council delayed progressing plans to discharge the Care Orders for two of Mr X’s children.
• The two children were left without a change of clothes when they were taken into care. And Children’s Services failed to visit the eldest child in the four weeks after they returned home.
• The Council failed to provide Mr X with the social worker’s report to the initial Child Protection Conference.
• There was an unreasonable delay in providing Mr X with minutes of a Core Group meeting.
• A senior manager was not adequately briefed before meeting Mr X.
• There was a failure to respond to contact from Mr X during 13- day period in April 2024.
17. The IO did not uphold 18 of Mr X’s complaints and made no finding in one head of complaint.
18. The IO recommended the Council:
• Apologise to Mr X for the upheld and partially upheld complaints.
• Devise a policy and issue practice guidance addressing how staff should respond to levels of contact from a service user or their family members which would otherwise be unmanageable (as distinct from any policy on managing unreasonably persistent or vexatious complainants).
19. The IP agreed with the findings, conclusions and outcomes from the IO report and supported the recommendations.
20. The Council’s Adjudication Officer accepted the findings by the IP and IO and:
• Apologised for the complaints upheld by the IO.
• Sent Mr X a copy of the social worker’s case conference report.
• Agreed to discuss devising a policy and practice guidance to address how staff should respond to levels of contact from a service user or their family members which would otherwise be unmanageable.
21. Mr X was unhappy with the stage 2 response and asked the Council to consider the complaint by the stage 3 review panel. The Council arranged for the panel hearing to take place in December 2024.

Stage 3 review panel

22. The panel considered Mr X’s response to the stage 2 investigation report and Mr X spoke to the panel. Mr X said as an outcome he wanted a full financial audit of the money the Council had spent on interventions with his family, the care orders on two of his children to be removed and compensation for lives he believed had been ruined.
23. The Adjudicating Officer set out the Council’s position and advised the Council intended to submit a discharge application to the courts to remove the two Care Orders. But the final decision on removing the Care Orders would be made by a judge.
24. Mr X referred to a complaint that had not been upheld at stage 2 and clarified it referred to a court hearing on a different date. Mr X considered an officer deliberately submitted a report to the court on the morning of the hearing to prevent Mr X being able to respond to it. Mr X said it was unreasonable, and they should have been given more time. The IO accepted they were unaware of this and based the finding on a different court date. The IO accepted therefore this part of Mr X’s complaint had not been investigated.
25. The panel also noted Mr X’s continued upset in references about his behaviour at a hospital visit in September 2023 and that he was ‘kicking off’. The IO acknowledged the evidence they had seen substantiated Mr X’s claim he was calm when attending the hospital that day but had not upheld the complaint. The panel found that this part of Mr X’s complaint should be upheld.
26. The panel found the stage 2 investigation report was conscientious and thorough. It agreed with the rest of the complaint findings. The panel issued its findings after the hearing.
27. The panel made the following three recommendations to the Council including:
• The IO and IP should be asked to re-investigate one head of complaint about submitting a court report due to the confusion about which court date it referred to.
• The Council should remove all references to Mr X ‘kicking off’ while he attended the hospital in September 2023 from all subsequent reports to conferences and the court, or the context is clarified. In addition, the Council should inform the court that this information is incorrect where stated in reports previously provide to the court.
• The Council should pay Mr X a ‘time and trouble’ payment of £500 in recognition of the delay experience by his family in relation to the delay discharging the Care Orders on his children. And in recognition of the injustice felt by Mr X in relation to his alleged behaviour in the hospital.
28. The IO and IP reinvestigated the one head of complaint about an officer submitting a court report due to the confusion about which court date it referred to. The IO and IP found the report was not submitted by the deadline set by the court. But information provided showed this was not done deliberately. The IO and IP partially upheld due to the report being late. The IO recommended the Council should apologise to Mr X for the late filing of the report.
29. The Council accepted the recommendations of the stage 3 panel and issued the adjudication letter in January 2025. The Adjudicating Officer:
• Apologised to Mr X for the partially upheld head of complaint after it had been reinvestigated.
• Apologised that the recording of some information in documentation was not accurate and would put a note on the case management system to that effect. Officers would make all relevant parties aware including the Head of Childcare Legal.
• It would make Mr X a symbolic time and trouble payment of £500 in recognition of the delay discharging the care orders on his children. And in recognition of the injustice felt by Mr X in relation to his alleged behaviour in the hospital.

My Findings

30. As previously explained, with complaints of this type, we only reinvestigate the substantive matters where we consider there is evidence of one or more fundamental flaws in how the statutory complaints procedure was carried out.
31. I see no evidence of such a flaw here. The Council escalated Mr X’s complaints at each stage as he requested it. It appointed an independent IO and IP to conduct stage 2, and an independent panel for stage 3, and followed each with an adjudication letter in which it accepted all findings and recommendations. Both the IO/IP and panel had access to the Council’s records and met with the available people relevant to the complaint. It addressed all the complaints made and set out the reasons for the findings made.
32. While the stage 3 panel reached a different conclusion on one part of Mr X’s complaint and upheld it. But I do not consider this makes the stage 2 investigation flawed as it is a decision the review panel is entitled to make. So, I do not consider there are grounds to reinvestigate all the complaints raised by Mr X. This is because the Council accepted the findings and recommendations made on this point. It also apologised to Mr X which is suitable action for it to take.
33. The Council has also provided evidence it has agreed the recommendations in the stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel review and would take the necessary actions. It has agreed to make Mr X a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the delay discharging the care orders on his children. And in recognition of the injustice felt by Mr X in relation to his alleged behaviour in the hospital.
34. Taking this together, I do not consider I have any grounds to find the Council’s investigation was fundamentally flawed. Instead, I am satisfied it was robustly undertaken and drew logical findings from the evidence available. Under these circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the substantive complaints, because there is no reason to believe we would make substantially different findings. So, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by any further investigation. In addition, the remedies offered such as the apologies and symbolic £500 payment are suitable remedies for the upheld complaints, injustice caused to Mr X and are in line with our Guidance on Remedies. Because of the reasons I have outlined, I have ended my investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

35. I have ended my investigation into the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman