Summary: Mr X and Miss Z complain about failings in the way the Council has supported their son, Y, and delays in the complaint process. Shortcomings in the Council’s service to Y and Mr X and Miss Z, and delays in the complaint process amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X and Miss Z an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Miss Z complain about failings in the way the Council has supported their son, Y. In particular Mr X and Miss Z complain:
1. The Council ended Y's Complex Child in Need plan without implementing an exit strategy or contingency plan to continue to support Y;
2. The Council has effectively threatened the family with an automatic Child Protection referral if they ask for support or are referred to Children's Social Care in the future;
3. The Council did not allocate Y with a social worker from the Children with Disabilities team during their second period of involvement with Children's Social Care;
4. The Council failed to implement plans to step down the Child in Need plan to CAF and transfer Y to the Children with disabilities team in 2016, and has not explained why this did not happen;
5. The Council shared sensitive personal information about Mr X without his knowledge or consent;
6. The Council failed to inform Mr X and Miss Z about two anonymous safeguarding referrals relating to his care of Y in 2014 and 2016;
7. The Council knew why Mr X did not attend a meeting at Y's school in 2014, but refused to confirm the reasons;
8. The Council's electronic records are inaccurate and incomplete;
9. Children's Services have not understood Y's needs or listened to or acted on the family's views when formulating plans and recommendations.
2. Mr X and Miss Z also complain about the length of time the Council has taken to respond to their complaint.

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 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. Mr X and Miss Z’s complaints relates to events which occurred more than 12 months. However, we have exercised discretion to consider them in light of the significant length of time the Council took to complete its own complaints investigation.
6. 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 Investigating Officer 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 that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X and Miss Z;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• sent a statement setting out my draft decision to Mr X and Miss Z and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. Several officers from various teams and services within the Council have supported Y and the family since 2012, initially through a Common Assessment Framework plan.
11. In October 2014 Mr X and Miss Z contacted Children’s Social Care (CSC) as Y was not attending school. Y’s school also contacted CSC and the Council allocated Y a social worker from the Children with Disabilities team. At this stage Y was presenting with signs of autism but did not have a diagnosis.
12. In 2015 one of the professionals involved in supporting Y made a safeguarding referral, which led to a Complex Child in Need plan for Y. This plan remained in place until May 2017 when Mr X withdrew from any involvement with CSC. He advised the Council he had lost trust in CSC and withdrew consent for them to contact any other agency regarding Y or his family.
13. Mr X and Miss Z continued to work with the education services to support Y in returning to school. Y’s attendance at school for the academic year 2014/15 was 66%, it remained at a similar level in 2015/16, but then dropped to just over 5% in 2016/17 and 2017/18.
14. While Y was unable to attend school, the school initially sent work home, and then the Council arranged a tuition service. Mr X states they had been asking for an Education Health Care (EHC) plan for Y since 2015 but officers had repeatedly told them this was not possible while Y was not in school. In February 2017, Y’s school also asked the Council for an EHC plan assessment. The Council agreed and completed the assessment in April 2017. It issued a draft EHC plan in July 2017 and the final version in August 2017.
15. Y’s attendance at school for the academic year 2018/19 was 83%, but Y has been unable to attend school since September 2019.

The complaint

16. In May 2017 Mr X and Miss Z complained to the Council about the Child in Need plan and Common Assessment Framework plan that had ben set up for Y. They felt that none of the meetings of the previous years had helped to support Y and the professionals were ignoring the parents’ and child’s views. Y had only attended school for six months in the previous three years, and Mr X and Miss Z felt the Council was siding with the school and raising concerns about their parenting.
17. In its response the Council noted the Child in Need plan had focussed on Y attending school and acknowledged this had not happened. The Council was unable to conclude whether professionals had done what they were supposed to do or not. It stated CSC had felt during meetings that their involvement was adding to the pressure on the family. And it was their view was that they would not need to maintain contact with the family while their education colleagues were updating and assessing Y’s needs. The educational assessment would help identify the support Y needs to access school and any resources required.
18. The Council did not uphold Mr X and Miss Z’s complaint that no one had listened to the family while implementing the Child in Need plan. It noted there had been a range of meetings and discussions between Mr X, Miss Z and agencies to share information and review plans. There were also separate meetings with Mr X, Miss Z and Y. The Council acknowledged there was disagreement over the way forward but was satisfied the family’s views had been considered.
19. Mr X and Miss Z were not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for their complaint to be investigated at stage two of the complaint procedure. The stage two investigator identified the nine heads of complaint set out in paragraph two above. The investigating officer upheld complaints 1,3,4,5,8 and 9. They did not uphold complaints 2, 6 or 7. The stage two investigation process took over a year to complete.
20. As Mr X and Miss Z remained unhappy, they asked for their complaint to be considered by an independent review panel. The panel reviewed the complaints not upheld at stage two and determined that complaint 6 should be upheld, and that complaint 7 should be changed to partially upheld.
21. The panel concluded complaint 2 was correctly not upheld. The panel noted Mr X and Miss Z complained an officer had recorded that if the family came to the attention of CSC again, the Council would make a referral under Child Protection procedures. It also noted the stage 2 investigating officer had reviewed the records which state matters could be taken to a Child Protection conference. The distinction between would and could meant the complaint was not upheld.
22. The panel recommended:
• the Council recirculate a policy change relating to Independent Reviewing Officer’s being able to chair Child in Need conferences so that staff are up to date and familiar with guidance;
• consider what lessons can be learned from errors in the redaction of a report, and put this into practice; and
• that all future complaint investigation reports are scrutinised for compliance with General Data Protection Regulation principles and practice.
23. The Council wrote to Mr X and Miss Z confirming it accepted the panel’s findings and recommendations. It apologised for the complaints that had been upheld and for any confusion or distress where complaints had not been upheld. The Council also confirmed it would update Mr X and Miss Z on the progress of the actions it had agreed at the panel meeting and the panel’s recommendations.
24. Mr X and Miss Z maintain that all of their complaints should be upheld in full and have asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X and Miss Y also complain that the complaint process took almost two years and created additional unnecessary stress. They would like to know that the Council has acted on the panel’s recommendations. They would also like to know whether the Council has taken any action against the officers involved in this matter.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council acknowledges there were delays in the complaints process. It states this was due to multiple factors including the time taken to agree the statement of complaint; the volume of information; the availability of staff for interviews; and capacity pressures. The Council has reiterated its apology for the delays and for any frustration caused by the length of time taken to consider this complaint. It also apologises for all the complaints that were upheld, and for any confusion and distress caused in some of the complaints that were not upheld.
26. The Council has provided details of the action it has taken to implement the panel’s recommendations. This includes training and reminders to staff and improved access to records for staff.
27. Complaints about CSC are considered under the statutory social care complaints process, which is separate to the Council’s corporate complaint process. The complaint investigation did not therefore extend to any consideration of the education support or provision offered to Y while he was out of school, or to enable his return. Mr X and Miss Z state they raised concerns about Y being out of school, and the EHC plan but did not make a formal complaint about these issues.
28. The Council has acknowledged the EHC plan was not completed within the required 20-week timeframe. The Council is unable to identify a specific reason for the delay but has confirmed the EHC plan was completed in 27 weeks and 2 days.

Analysis

29. There are strict timescales for responding to complaints about children’s social care services. Councils should respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 days of receiving it. A stage 2 investigation should take no more than 25 days for a simple complaint and no more than 65 days if the complaint is more complex. If a complaint goes to stage 3, a Review Panel should meet within 30 days of the request. The Panel must provide the complainant with its report within five working days. And the council then has 15 working days to respond to the Panel’s findings.
30. The Council’s failure to meet these timeframes amounts to fault. Mr X and Miss Z made a stage 1 complaint in May 2017 and received the Council’s response to the stage 3 Panel’s findings in March 2019. Such significant delays are unacceptable and will have caused Mr X and Miss Z additional unnecessary frustration and distress.
31. Mr X and Miss Z disagree with the Council’s decisions on elements 2 and 7 of their complaint, but there is no evidence of fault in the way these issues were considered. It is clear the investigating officer had considered the records and both they and the review panel were satisfied the Council had not threatened Mr X and Miss Z with an automatic referral under Child Protection procedures. The investigating officer and the panel also considered the evidence in relation to Mr X’s non-attendance at a meeting at Y's school in 2014. The panel was satisfied one officer was aware of the reason Mr X did not attend, but that there was no evidence a second officer was aware of this information.
32. Mr X and Miss Z refer records of a home visit in October 2014 which show that Miss Z told both officers that she would attend the meeting at school alone as Mr X does not get on with the school. Mr X asserts this confirms the officers knew why he did not attend the meeting and that this complaint should be upheld in full.
33. The records show the investigating officer considered these records and that the panel were aware of and discussed these records at the review meeting. They note that Miss Z, rather than Mr X had given the reason Mr X would not attend. The officer had also taken legal advice and had told Mr X only he could explain his reasons for not attending.
34. The Council has provided evidence to show it is implementing the recommendations for service improvements made by the independent investigator and review panel. It has provided copies of training material and guidance issued which address the issues raised in this complaint. I am therefore satisfied it is implementing the recommendations of the independent investigation.
35. In addition to the service improvements, the Council has apologised for the confusion and distress caused by the failings in its service. The Council has also apologised for the delay in completing the complaint process. This is to be welcomed, but I do not consider these apologies to be an adequate remedy for the injustice these failings have caused Mr X, Miss Z and Y.
36. Having upheld most of Mr X and Miss Z’s complaints and acknowledged there were repeated failings in the service to Mr X, Miss Z and Y, I consider a financial remedy, in recognition of the impact this has had on Mr X, Miss Z and their family would be appropriate. Any payment should also reflect the additional distress and frustration caused by the delay in completing the complaint process.
37. The Ombudsman considers payments for avoidable distress and frustration are symbolic and he often recommends a modest sum between the range of £100 to £300. But, in some cases, where the avoidable distress is severe, this can be increased.
38. In this instance I consider a payment of £500 would be appropriate.
39. It is clearly a concern for all involved that Y had spent such significant periods out of school over recent years. Mr X and Miss Z have not raised a specific complaint about this and recognise that Y’s anxiety and difficulty sleeping are a substantial barrier to him being able to access education. Mr X and Miss Z do not consider that at this stage Y would accept additional support or find this beneficial.

Agreed action

40. The Council has agreed to pay £500 in recognition of the frustration and distress the failings in the Council’s service has caused Mr X and Miss Z and the length of time taken to complete the complaint process.
41. The Council should make this payment within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

42. Shortcomings in the Council’s service to Y and Mr X, and delays in the complaint process amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman