Summary: Mr X was not satisfied with the investigation of his complaint about Children’s Services under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. There was some fault in the way the Council dealt with his complaint but it has now put matters right and offered a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X is not satisfied with the investigation of his complaint about Children’s Services under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. He says there were delays at all stages and a failure to consider all relevant information fully and fairly at stages 2 and 3 of the process.
2. As a result he feels he has not had a proper investigation of his complaint or an adequate remedy.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), and 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended). This includes reports produced for court.
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the complaint documents the Council provided. I shared my draft decision with the Council and the complainant and considered the responses I received.
10. 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

What I found

11. Mr X has two children with his ex-wife, Mrs X. Following the breakdown of his marriage in 2014 Mrs X made allegations of domestic violence against Mr X and stopped him having contact with the children. Mr X made a private law application to the court for a Child Arrangements Order for contact with the children. In August 2014 the court ordered the Council to prepare a welfare report about the family for it to consider in deciding contact arrangements. This is known as a ‘section 7 report’.
12. As part of her assessment for the report, the social worker, SW1, saw Mr X, Mrs X and the children. The final hearing in the legal proceedings took place in August 2015. The court granted a Child Arrangements Order that set out the contact arrangements for Mr X with his children. The court also granted a Family Assistance Order to the Council to support the family with the contact arrangements.
13. Mr X was not happy with SW1’s involvement and in August 2015 made a complaint about her to the Council, saying she was biased in favour of his ex-wife.

History of children’s social care complaint

14. There were lengthy delays in dealing with the complaint. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman twice in 2016 about the Council’s failure to progress the complaint to stage 2 of the children’s social care complaints procedure. The Council had agreed a statement of complaint with Mr X about its failures in complaint handling. It said it would investigate the delays. It said after that it would carry out a stage 2 investigation into the original issues raised about the social worker’s handling of his case. When Mr X came to the Ombudsman the second time, the Council had accepted faults in its complaint handling. But it had not carried out the investigation into the substantive issues Mr X had raised.
15. The Ombudsman’s decision in December 2017 found that the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with Mr X’s complaint. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to:
• draw up a statement of complaint with Mr X about the children’s social care issues;
• investigate the complaint at stage 2, including further issues that had arisen in the past year;
• apologise to Mr X and pay him £600 to recognise the frustration, distress and unnecessary time and trouble caused by the delays in dealing with his complaint at all stages.
16. Mr X submitted a 38-point complaint to the Council in January 2018 covering the original issues from 2015 relating to SW1, and more recent events. Mr X’s list included complaints about:
• not treating him as having Parental Responsibility
• breaches of confidentiality
• failure to comply with court orders
• failure to support him and his children
• bias towards his ex-wife
• the way SW1 and a later social worker, SW2, dealt with him.
17. The outcomes he said he wanted included:
• recognition, an apology and compensation for the Council’s negligence, lack of professionalism and unfair treatment
• an assessment of the impact of this on him and his children
• obtaining all the court transcripts
• alternative contact arrangements
• a review of social care practices
• SW1 to be taken off the case.
18. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to investigate the complaint at stage 2. The IO provided her report to the Council on 25 May 2018, apologising for the delay in producing it. The Council wrote to Mr X with the outcome of the complaint on 8 June 2018. It apologised for the delay in sending the letter, which it said it should have sent by 18 May at the latest.
19. The IO did not uphold most of Mr X’s complaints. One complaint about SW1 was partly upheld. The IO found that although there was no evidence that Mrs X received favourable treatment, Mr X ‘may have felt marginalised’ and the Council should review its practice. Three other complaints were upheld. These were where SW1 had failed to update Mr X about certain actions she took and used inappropriate and insensitive language in a letter to him.
20. The IO did not support the outcomes Mr X wanted as she said the investigation did not find evidence of the failings in social care practice that he had alleged. There was one exception. She recommended that the Council should review its practices to ensure parents are not alienated in this type of cases. She also recommended apologies for the other faults found.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X with its response to the report in June 2018. It agreed with all the findings of the stage 2 report except for the finding about Mr X being marginalised. It said it found no evidence in the case file to suggest that SW1 had excluded him from the process or was biased in favour of Mrs X. The Council apologised for the wording SW1 had used in her letter and for her failure to contact him on two occasions. It said she no longer worked for the Council and so it could not follow up the issues with her any further.
22. The Council agreed to review social work practice to ‘ensure it is as inclusive and transparent as it can be’ towards both parents in cases of family breakdown. It agreed to write to Mr X to apologise for the other faults found.
23. Mr X was not happy with the result of the complaint and asked to go to stage 3. The stage 3 Review Panel noted that it had read the detailed 16-page document he had submitted and further documents he provided which included Court Orders. It said some of the issues were outside its remit. It could not deal with matters considered in court. It said complaints about data breaches should be taken up with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
24. The Review Panel agreed with nearly all the stage 2 findings and conclusions. But there were six complaints where it considered that the report had not shown enough evidence from the case records to support the conclusions. It made some recommendations about improvements in the stage 2 process. It also recommended that the Council should engage another IO to carry out a ‘desktop’ review of these six complaints and produce a report for the Council to respond to.
25. The Council also agreed to place a note on the case file correcting a mistake on a matter Mr X had raised.
26. The Council appointed another IO who examined the case files and issued a report in October 2018. Following this review the IO did not change the conclusions of the stage 2 report on the six complaints. They all remained ‘not upheld’.
27. Mr X was not satisfied with the outcome. He complained to the Ombudsman. He said he had no trust in the integrity or validity of the investigation. He complained that:
• there were mistakes and delays in the stage 2 investigation;
• the stage 3 investigation was not transparent and did not consider all relevant information;
• the stage 3 investigation upheld the Council’s decision at stage 2 despite finding errors by the stage 2 IO;
• there were delays at stage 3;
• the Council did not deal properly with his requests for information.
28. In discussing the complaint with the Ombudsman Mr X said the outcomes he wanted to achieve were those set out in the stage 2 report. He said his main concern was that the Council did not deal with him impartially but treated him as a perpetrator of domestic violence.

Analysis

29. The Ombudsman’s role is not to re-investigate a complaint that has been through all three stages of the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure unless there is evidence of flaws in the investigation that were likely to have affected the outcome. In this case I find that the stage 2 investigation was for the most part thorough and detailed and the conclusions were supported by the evidence presented. The stage 3 Review Panel identified gaps in the supporting evidence in six of the 38 complaints. This was remedied by the further examination of the case records, but it did not change the overall result.
30. Mr X complains about mistakes in the stage 2 investigation but these have been put right. He also complains that the stage 3 ‘investigation’ was inadequate. However it is not the Review Panel’s role to re-investigate the complaint. The Panel explained its role to Mr X at the hearing and set this out in its report. It listens to the parties, considers where the stage 2 investigation was adequate, reaches conclusions on any disputed findings, and tries to achieve a resolution. Looking at the Panel’s report of the hearing, my view is that it considered Mr X’s request for review carefully and fairly. The evidence shows it listened to him and considered his detailed written submission and the further evidence provided. It changed the stage 2 findings where it considered appropriate. It recommended a further review where it considered the evidence presented was not sufficient to support the stage 2 findings.
31. The Council has already accepted there was delay in the investigation at stage 2. It has apologised and offered Mr X a payment of £600 to recognise the impact of the delays. There may have been further delay between stage 2 and stage 3. However the Council has agreed a significant payment, higher than would usually be recommended under the Ombudsman’s guidelines. I do not consider it would be appropriate to recommend any further payment in relation to delays when the investigation did not find major fault in the substantive matters raised in the complaint.
32. So the Council has already addressed the issues of delays and the flaws in the stage 2 investigation that the Review Panel identified. I have not seen evidence of any other faults in the way the investigation was carried out. Following the further ‘desktop’ review I am satisfied that all the issues have been investigated properly. The Council has responded appropriately by accepting the recommendations made. I therefore do not see any grounds for the Ombudsman to re-investigate Mr X’s complaint.
33. I also consider that further investigation is unlikely to achieve the results Mr X is looking for. The investigation did not find evidence of such poor treatment and social work practice to justify a financial remedy for Mr X. Mr X told the Review Panel that now “Everything is going well with children. Parents are co-parenting”. The Council only became involved with his family because the court ordered a report in connection with his private law proceedings. This resulted in a decision to allow contact with the children and he has confirmed arrangements are going well. Further investigation is unlikely to result in a recommendation for an assessment to assess any negative impact of the Council’s involvement on his family.
34. Nor would it help Mr X with a change of social worker as SW1 has already left the Council.
35. Other issues Mr X wants to pursue are outside the Ombudsman’s remit. If he wishes to complain about data breaches or failure to provide information to him he may contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. It would not be for the Ombudsman to obtain court transcripts for him. If he considers the Council is failing to comply with court orders or if he wishes to change the contact arrangements it would be open to him to return to the court.
36. For these reasons I am satisfied that the Council has now investigated the complaint properly and offered an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have found that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint but it has now offered a satisfactory remedy. There is therefore no need for the Ombudsman to investigate further and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman