Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to ensure a stage three panel had the relevant information before it reached its conclusions on his complaint. There is no fault in how the stage three panel considered the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained the stage three panel, when considering his complaint, did not have access to the relevant information. Mr C says if panel had access to the minutes of two review meetings and a copy of his son’s letter to the director it would likely have reached different conclusions.
2. Mr C says this has caused his family distress as the Council has not accepted its role in the breakdown of his relationship with his son and the impact that has had on other family members.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr C disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr C 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

Background

7. Mr C and his partner adopted a sibling group but later moved out of the Council’s area. Mr C and his partner contacted the Council at the end of 2018 as they were having difficulty managing their eldest son’s behaviours. The Council tried but failed to find a suitable placement close to Mr C and his partner and therefore placed their son in an alternative placement out of area in April 2019. The Council did that under section 20 of the Children’s Act which is a voluntary agreement where Mr C and his partner agreed to their son being in care.
8. The initial plan was for Mr C’s son to have a psychological assessment and therapy. That was the confirmed way forward at the review meeting which took place in April 2019. By the June 2019 review meeting though the plan had changed. The Council says this is because Mr C’s son had made progress in his placement and it no longer considered a psychological assessment necessary. The Council had made a referral to child and adolescent mental health services at the end of May 2019 and had told Mr C and his partner about that when a social worker visited them the day after making the referral. The plan at that point was still for Mr C’s son to move back to the same area as Mr C and his partner, albeit likely living independently and dependent on whether he chose to remain in his current area to study. The contingency plan if it was not possible for him to return to live near Mr C and his partner was for him to remain in the accommodation with the support of the Council until he reached independence.
9. Mr C’s son began visits back to his family home for a short period. Following one of those visits an issue arose and Mr C’s son said he did not want contact with Mr C and his partner. Mr C rescinded the section 20 agreement and expected this would result in his son returning home. However, as his son was over 16 he signed his own section 20 agreement which meant the Council continued to provide accommodation for him. As it currently stands Mr C has declined to have contact with his son due to concerns about the risk this poses to the other children.
10. Mr C put in a complaint to the Council. The Council responded to the complaint at stage one and at first refused to take the complaint to stage two as it did not feel it could achieve the outcomes Mr C was seeking and because his son had not agreed for his records to be shared. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention the Council carried out a stage two investigation which did not uphold any of the areas of complaint. Mr C was not happy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council to progress the complaint to stage three. The stage three panel considered the complaint and agreed with the findings of the stage two investigation, except for one area where it recommended the Council apologise for the tone and timing of an email telling Mr C his son had signed his own section 20 agreement.
11. Mr C says it was the Council’s failure to carry out the psychological assessment and therapy for his son which resulted in the breakdown of the relationship.

Analysis

12. Mr C says the Council, when considering the complaint at stage three, failed to ensure panel had the relevant information. What Mr C is referring to here are the minutes from the review meetings in April and June 2019 and a letter his son wrote to the director in July 2019. Mr C says those minutes and his son’s letter provide information panel was not aware of and would have affected its conclusions.
13. The first point to make here is the role of the stage three review panel is not to reinvestigate the complaint. The role of the stage three panel is to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation. I would therefore not expect the panel to have access to the background documentation. I am, however, satisfied the papers presented to the stage three panel included Mr C’s representations about the inadequacy of the stage two investigation. In his comments Mr C specifically referred to panel’s need to see the minutes of the two review meetings and his son’s letter to the director in July 2019. I am therefore satisfied panel was aware of that request. As I have made clear though, it is not usual for panel to consider the documentary evidence on which a stage two investigation is based. There is no evidence to suggest panel considered it necessary to see those documents to reach a conclusion on the complaint.
14. In this case I am satisfied the stage three panel had access to various pieces of information which included a copy of the stage two investigation report and Mr C’s response to that report. I am satisfied those documents set out the original plan from the April 2019 review and the new plan by the time of the June 2019 review. The evidence Mr C presented then set out his concerns about how that plan had been changed. I am also satisfied those were issues panel discussed during the meeting, during which Mr C and his partner had an opportunity to present their concerns. So, while panel did not have access to the minutes of the two reviews it is clear it knew of the issues relating to the difference between those two reviews, the Council’s reasoning for the change in plan and Mr C’s concerns about that change in plan when reaching its conclusions. I am therefore satisfied panel had enough evidence to reach its findings without seeing the minutes of the review meetings. Given panel knew about the difference between the outcome of the two review meetings and Mr C’s concerns about that I do not consider having access to the minutes themselves would have resulted in a different outcome.
15. In terms of the letter from Mr C’s son to the director, this relates to concerns the Council failed to act on Mr C’s son’s wish to return to the area Mr C lives in, albeit likely in independent accommodation. I am satisfied panel did not see that letter. I am also satisfied though the letter was referred to during the discussion at the panel meeting. The investigating officer was clear the letter had not been shared because this was a letter from Mr C’s son and he had not given his permission to share the information and had not been part of the complaint to the Council. I cannot criticise the Council for not presenting a copy of Mr C’s son’s letter to the panel when he had not given permission for it to be shared. Nor do I consider it would likely have resulted in a different outcome. I say that because the relationship between Mr C’s son and his family broke down shortly after that letter was written and well before the panel meeting. Mr C’s concern is that his son’s wish to return to live close to Mr C and his partner were not respected. However, Mr C’s son has not supported the complaint, has withdrawn permission for Mr C and his partner to have access to his records and has not made a complaint in his own right about the plans for his future or any lack of therapy. In those circumstances I do not consider it likely having sight of the letter Mr C’s son wrote to the Council would have resulted in a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman