Summary: Mr X says the Council has not corrected errors in reports about his children, as recommended by the statutory children’s complaints process. There was fault by the Council. The action the Council has already taken is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to correct errors in reports about his children. He also says the Council has failed to implement the recommendations it agreed following a statutory children’s complaint process.
2. As a result, Mr X says the reports are still inaccurate. He says he has experienced unnecessary distress and anxiety.

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. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
6. I made written enquires of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Children’s Complaints Procedure

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 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 we consider that investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What Happened

9. In December 2018, the Council conducted a Child and Family Assessment of Mr X’s two children. The Council produced two reports, one for each child.
10. Mr X was unhappy with the reports. He complained to the Council in January 2019. He said the reports contained inaccurate information and misrepresented what he said during his meetings with social workers.
11. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint under the statutory process for complaints about children’s services. Mr X asked the Council to investigate his complaint at stage two.
12. The stage two investigation partially upheld Mr X’s complaint. It found the reports did contain some errors and some opinions and allegations were not qualified as such.
13. The stage two investigation recommended the Council:
• Apologise to Mr X; and
• Tell Mr X what action it would take to put things right.
14. In its adjudication, the Council apologised and agreed to ensure the reports were clear about what was fact and what was opinion.
15. Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked for a stage three panel. The stage three panel was critical of parts of the stage two investigation. It found parts of the report lacked detail. It also said the Investigating Officer should have been able to reach a conclusion about whether some of Mr X’s complaints were upheld based on the audio recordings of his meetings with social workers Mr X provided.
16. The stage three panel partially upheld Mr X’s complaint. It identified additional errors in the reports to those found at stage two.
17. The stage three panel recommended the Council amend the assessments and case notes to show where Mr X disagreed with an opinion and to correct any factual inaccuracies.
18. In its adjudication, the Council accepted all the recommendations of the stage three panel. It agreed to produce guidance for Investigating Officers and Independent Persons to address the criticisms of the stage two investigation.

My Findings

19. Although the stage three panel found the stage two investigation was flawed, its recommendations are a suitable remedy for any injustice this caused. Therefore, there is no need for the Ombudsman to further investigate the complaint. However, I will consider whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
20. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence to show it has carried out all the recommendations of the stage 3 panel.
21. Therefore, there is no remaining injustice to Mr X.
22. Mr X is concerned that the amended reports have not been circulated as the original, inaccurate reports were. The Council has agreed to recirculate the amended reports to all those who received the original.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault but it has already taken action to remedy this. There is no unremedied injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman