Derbyshire County Council (18 013 904)

Category : Children's care services > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 12 Nov 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her request for help with issues concerning her daughter, Z. She says this caused the family prolonged stress and meant they had to pay for private assessments of Z. The worker arrived at her views without procedural fault. However, one piece of advice was unwise, and the Council took too long to deal with Mrs X’s complaint. Its apologies are sufficient.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the actions of a multi-agency team (MAT) social worker. Specifically, she says the worker:
  • Refused to listen to her concerns about her daughter, Z
  • Gave poor advice in handling Z’s meltdowns;
  • Kept poor records, making assumptions about the cause of Z’s issues and accusations of poor behaviour management; and
  • Refused to refer on the family to specialist services and failed to send back a report to the single point of access (SPOA) via the NHS.
  1. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to provide effective management and supervision for the worker, and to provide suitably qualified staff to deal with children referred by the SPOA.
  2. Finally, Mrs X complains about the Council’s complaints handling. Specifically, she says it:
  • Failed to keep to the complaints procedure, including timescales and changing from the corporate to the statutory procedure and then back to the corporate procedure; and
  • Failed to recognise professional reports during this procedure.
  1. Mrs X says this caused the family prolonged stress and caused them to have to pay privately for assessments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
  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. 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

  1. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance for dealing with complaints about social care by children or those representing them. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response, including documents it supplied. Some of these were confidential. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. I considered those I received.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Mrs X contacted the Council for help in early 2017, after being advised to do so by the NHS single point of access (SPOA). She did this because her daughter, Z, was having what Mrs X calls “meltdowns”. These were causing significant concern within the family. The complaint largely concerns the actions of a multi-agency team (MAT) worker the Council assigned to the family’s case. But there are also matters that concern the supervision of the worker and the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint.

Matters concerning the MAT worker

Listening to Mrs X’s concerns

  1. We would expect a worker to consider the evidence available in forming a view. This evidence would include the worker’s own observations as well as the views of other professionals. Where a council has reached a decision properly, we cannot substitute our view for the council’s view.
  2. The evidence shows the MAT worker formed a different view of Z’s needs from Mrs X. The records I have seen show she considered Mrs X’s concerns during the period she was involved with the family, but that she took a different view. I do not therefore find the Council at fault.

Advice in handling Z’s “meltdowns”

  1. The records show the MAT worker considered a range of evidence, including that which Mrs X provided and her own observations. She decided the issue was one of behaviour management and gave advice accordingly. While Mrs X says the MAT worker’s advice was wrong, it was a matter of judgment reached without procedural fault.

Record keeping, assumptions about the cause of Z’s issues and accusations of poor behaviour management

  1. The records, some of which I have not been able to share with Mrs X, show the MAT worker’s thinking and her consideration of Mrs X’s views. As stated above, she reached a different view of Z’s issues to Mrs X. Both the MAT worker and Z’s head teacher were concerned about the recommendations of a private occupational therapy report Mrs X commissioned. The school found these recommendations were unusual and might cause issues in the classroom. The records show the MAT worker’s advice was to check the occupational therapist’s accreditation with the NHS before implementing any of the recommendations.
  2. The MAT worker also spoke to Z at school. She recorded Z told her that she did not like the word “meltdown”. She also recorded Z said she had “tantrums” at home to “get what I want” and said, “It works”. She recorded Z said she did this to get attention. She recorded her view that Z was able to explain what her behaviour was and to take responsibility for it. On this basis, she could reach a judgment. Although Mrs X says the MAT worker reached her judgment before a session with Z, she had seen Z alone almost three months earlier. What Z told her, both at the time of the session Mrs X referenced, and three months earlier, accorded with the views the MAT worker reached.
  3. It is not for me to say if the MAT worker’s judgment was right. Instead, I must consider if she reached it with procedural fault. I do not find the Council at fault as the MAT worker recorded her views based on the evidence she considered.
  4. Mrs X also said the MAT worker lied about the reason why she was unable to stick to an appointment. The Council has provided evidence that supports the reason it gave Mrs X. I do not therefore find the worker lied about her actions.
  5. The Council accepted that advice to use a worry jar with Z was unwise as the jar was made from glass.

Refusal to refer the family on to the SPOA

  1. Mrs X says the MAT worker told her, in refusing to refer the family on to the SPOA, “You’ll have to get past me.” The Council denies she said this. Without independent corroboration, I can reach no view.
  2. It was a matter for the MAT worker’s judgment whether to make the referral to SPOA. As she reached her view of Z’s needs without procedural fault, I cannot say her decision not to refer was fault. Mrs X says the MAT worker should have shared her finding with SPOA. But there was no requirement she should.

Management and supervision of the MAT worker, and professional qualifications

  1. Social care staff have regular supervision sessions with managers where they discuss cases. The records show the MAT worker had such regular sessions. The Council also provided evidence of the MAT worker’s professional qualifications and the training she was undertaking. While she reached views that Mrs X disagreed with, that was not the result of inadequate supervision or a lack of suitable professional qualifications.
  2. Mrs X maintains the MAT worker required greater supervision.

Complaints handling

Changes of procedure and delay

  1. Complaints about social care by or on behalf of children are subject to a statutory procedure. This is laid out in Getting the Best from Complaints 2006. The statutory procedure states at paragraph 2.2.1 that “all functions of the local authority under Part 3 of the [Children] Act [1989] may form the subject of a complaint.” It goes on to state that a complaint may concern “an unwelcome or disputed decision.”
  2. The maximum timescale for dealing with a complaint at all stages of this procedure is about six months, provided the complainant agrees to an extension of 40 working days at the second stage. Where the complaint only runs for two stages, the maximum timescale is about four months.
  3. The matters complained of involved the actions of a member of social care staff in assessing Z’s needs. It was therefore a children’s social care complaint.
  4. The records show the Council used both the statutory procedure and its own corporate complaints procedure at different times for dealing with the complaint. They also show the Council took over nine months to deal with the complaint to the end of the second stage instead of four. Of this period, about two months was due to Mrs Z, but most of the delay, about three months, was the Council’s fault. For example, a period of summer leave would not have become an issue if the Council had not already been behind schedule. This complaint handling was fault.

Recognising professional reports

  1. The records show the occupational therapy report was available to the Council when it considered Mrs X’s complaint. A later psychiatric report, which Mrs X says supported her views, was not ready until two weeks before the Council issued its second stage response at the end of August 2018. Mrs X says the investigator told he not to send it as it would make no difference. The Council issued a further response at the end of October 2018 after Mrs X said she was dissatisfied with the second stage report. This response gave reasons why the reports did not give the Council cause to change its view.
  2. I note the Council takes a wholly different view of matters to Mrs X. She says the professional reports show she is right about Z’s needs. It says these reports do not give it grounds to take a different course. Essentially, there is a difference of opinion about the relevance of the two reports. That does not mean the Council failed to take account of them.

Injustice

  1. Mrs X questioned whether the worry jar made of glass was right for Z and did not use it. So, Z was not harmed. Although the Council took too long to deal with Mrs X’s complaint, there was no injustice caused by fault in the substantive parts of the complaint that needed remedy. So, the fault in complaint handling did not cause injustice in delaying remedy or lead to a worse result for Mrs X. The Council has apologised that the MAT worker advised Mrs X to use a worry jar that was made of glass, and for its delayed complaint handling. I do not therefore recommend further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have upheld the complaint about complaint handling and the worry jar. But I do not propose further remedy beyond that already offered by the Council. I do not o find fault in the other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings