Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s remedy offer following an investigation of her complaints under the statutory children complaints procedure. Mrs X says the Council’s offer is not proportionate to the injustice caused by the faults identified. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council has considered the findings. We have recommended a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. The Council has investigated Mrs X’s complaints through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Some of her complaints were upheld at stage two and three of the procedure. Mrs X complains about some of the Council’s remedies following the investigation of her complaints against children services. Mrs X also complains about one complaint that was not upheld.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
5. I reviewed the stage two investigation and stage three review documents.
6. I sent a draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory children’s 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. At stage two of this procedure, the Council appoints an independent investigator and an independent person (who oversees the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review.
8. If a council has considered a complaint under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate the complaints 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.
9. I have reviewed the stage two and three procedures and I am satisfied there has been no fault in the way the complaints were investigated. Therefore, I have relied on the findings made and have only reviewed whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the investigation. I have not reinvestigated Mrs X’s complaints.

Guidance on Remedies

10. The Ombudsman has published a guidance on remedies. It notes that we can recommend a financial payment as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress or difficulties complaints have been put through. It states our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might.
11. The Ombudsman can recommend a remedy for distress. However, the guidance is clear that it must be avoidable distress arising from fault.
12. Our recommendation for a remedy needs to reflect all the circumstances, including:

• the severity of the distress;
• the length of time involved; and
• the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant).

13. The guidance sets out that a remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1000 may be justified.
14. The guidance also sets out that it is sometimes appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the fault has included harm, or risk of harm. These can arise when the complainant, because of fault by the body in jurisdiction, did not receive services intended to provide protection. Harm and risk of harm should be considered in the same way as distress.
15. Where the risk of harm was significant, or where harm occurred, we may recommend a payment of up to £1500 to acknowledge this.

Background

16. Mrs X’s complaints to the Council were in relation to her son, A.
17. As I have relied on the findings of statutory complaints investigation and review, I have not included details of Mrs X’s complaints that were not upheld during the procedure.
18. Mrs X complaint to us was about the Council’s remedy offer with regards to two upheld complaints. I have therefore only included details about these two complaints.

What happened

19. The stage two investigation first considered the complaint the Council had failed to safeguard or act appropriately in respect of A’s behaviour towards his mother and his brother. The investigator considered the Council’s actions up to August 2015, which was before A was open to children’s services. The complaint was upheld on the basis the Council did not assess the issues faced by Mrs X until after the sixth referral.
20. In its adjudication letter, the Council said it accepted the findings and apologised to Mrs X that it did not take decisive action to safeguard her, A, and her other son. The Council offered Mrs X a payment of £500 to recognise the distress caused.
21. Mrs X felt the stage two investigator had not looked at the right issues as her main concern was the Council did not act while A was open to children’s services, after August 2015.
22. The stage two investigator considered Mrs X’s complaint again. She complained children’s services failed to protect Mrs X and her youngest child from the actual harm caused by A between August 2015 until May 2016.
23. The complaint was upheld at both stage two and three.
24. The Council accepted the fault identified. It again offered Mrs X £500 for the distress caused. The Council said it had reviewed the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and felt the offer was appropriate. Mrs X said this offered did not properly reflect the injustice caused to her, and her sons, and was not reflective of their circumstances.
25. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s response to her MP. She said the response contained untruths and had made personal comments about her that were demeaning and slanderous.
26. The stage two investigation and stage three review upheld this complaint. The Council accepted this finding of fault and apologised to Mrs X for the inaccurate information. The Council has written to Mrs X’s MP and made him aware of the inaccurate information. The Council also offered Mrs X £100 to recognise the distress caused.
27. Mrs X said these comments could have affected her career as a registered nurse and she had to make her manager aware of the comments. Mrs X said her manager made a note in her file and she kept him updated on the issue. Mrs X said her manager did not believe the comments and she continued in her role while the Council considered her complaints.
28. Mrs X said the Council’s offer is not proportionate to the distress caused as she spent around five months unsure about whether her job was at risk.

Analysis

29. Mrs X had complained children’s services failed to protect her and her youngest child from actual harm caused by the violent, aggressive and volatile behaviour of A. This complaint was upheld, and the Council accepted the findings. Therefore, I must consider whether the Council has properly considered the impact of the actual harm and whether its remedy offer is appropriate to reflect the injustice caused to Mrs X and her other son.
30. Our guidance is clear that where harm has occurred, we may recommend a payment of up to £1500 to recognise this.
31. The Council accepted the finding and said it considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It made an offer of £500 to recognise the distress caused by its failure to take decisive action to safeguard A, herself, and her other son.
32. The Council has shown it considered the impact of the fault caused by the delay in not taking decisive action. However, it did not consider the impact of its failure to protect Mrs X and her other son from actual harm. Further, there is no evidence the Council considered the severity of the harm caused, the length of time involved, or the number of people affected. Therefore, I find fault in the way the Council considered its remedy offer.
33. The Council also accepted fault for the inaccurate information provided to Mrs X’s MP. The Council wrote to Mrs X’s MP to outline the inaccurate information and wrote to Mrs X to apologise. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
34. The Council has offered Mrs X £100 to recognise the distress caused by this fault. Mrs X said this offer was not proportionate to the distress caused to her. Mrs X said the inaccurate information could have led to her losing her nursing registration. Mrs X said she spent around five months in a state of uncertainty as she did not know whether her job was at risk.
35. However, Mrs X also explained her manager did not believe the comments made and she continued working in her job with no restrictions while the Council investigated her complaint. Therefore, Mrs X’s injustice is limited. Nevertheless, it is clear the Council’s inaccurate comments did cause Mrs X distress.
36. Our remedies guidance states that a payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. Therefore, given the above, I am satisfied the Council’s offer of £100 to recognise the distress caused to Mrs X by the fault is appropriate.

Agreed action

37. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:

• Pay Mrs X £1500 to recognise the distress and harm caused by the Council’s failure to protect Mrs X and her youngest son from actual harm.
• Pay Mrs X £100 to recognise the distress caused by the Council providing Mrs X’s MP with inaccurate information.

38. The Council should complete the above remedy within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I find fault in the way the Council considered its remedy offer to recognise the injustice caused by its failure to protect Mrs X and her other son from actual harm. I do not find fault with how the Council considered its other remedy offer. The Council has accepted my recommendations. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman