Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to provide adequate support for her son. She also complains about the Council’s assessment of her son’s needs. She says this caused stress and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council investigated and responded to this complaint through the statutory complaints process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complains the Council failed to provide adequate support for her son. She also complains about the Council’s assessment of her son’s needs.
2. Ms X says this impacted on her mental health and caused stress and distress. She says it also impacted on her relationship with her son.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council investigated and responded to Ms X’s complaint. The final section of this statement explains the part of Ms X’s complaint I have not investigated and the reason for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
8. I considered the relevant guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. The government published statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, which sets out a three-stage procedure that councils follow when considering certain complaints about children’s social care services.
10. At stage one of the procedure, the council considers the complaint and should try and resolve the complaint as quickly as possible.
11. At stage two, the council appoints an independent Investigating Officer to investigate the complaint, and an Independent Person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. The council will appoint a senior manager to adjudicate on the findings.
12. The Investigating Officer’s report (stage two report) should include details of their findings (‘upheld’ or ‘not upheld’), and recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant. The guidance says the Investigating Officer should have access to all relevant records and staff. It says the Investigating Officer may interview staff and other people relevant to the complaint.
13. The purpose of the council’s adjudication on the Investigating Officer’s report is to give its response, its decision on each point of the complaint, and to identify any action to be taken. The guidance says the Adjudicating Officer should make sure that any recommendations in the council’s adjudication response are implemented.
14. The complainant can then ask the council to convene an independent review panel. This forms the third stage of the complaints procedure. The review panel will consider the adequacy of the independent stage two investigation.
15. The review panel should make recommendations that provide practical remedies and creative solutions to difficult situations. It should identify any injustice to the complainant where complaints have been upheld and recommend appropriate remedies. The panel should also recommend service improvements for the council, if appropriate.
16. If a council has investigated a complaint under this statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless we consider the investigation was flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

What happened

17. Ms X’s son, B, has special needs. In 2019, Ms X complained to the Council about its lack of support, and failure to assess B’s needs adequately and accurately.
18. In its stage one response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council said it was finalising a document which would set out the criteria to be eligible for support from its Children with Disabilities team.
19. Ms X asked that her complaint be dealt with at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
20. The Investigating Officer upheld three parts of Ms X’s complaint, partially upheld three parts, and did not uphold two parts. He made five recommendations to the Council: one was to apologise to Ms X for the service failures he identified; and four were improvements the Council should make to its service.
21. The Council then sent Ms X its adjudication on the stage two findings. The Council agreed with the Investigating Officer. In addition to the Investigating Officer’s recommendations, the Council offered Ms X £650 for the avoidable distress caused and for Ms X’s time and trouble. It said this amount was in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. Ms X accepted this payment.
22. Ms X asked that her complaint was dealt with at stage three of the statutory process.
23. The stage three review panel agreed with all of the Investigating Officer’s findings, with the exception of one part of Ms X’s complaint. For this one part, the stage three panel did not agree it should be partially upheld: it found it should be fully upheld.
24. The review panel made two additional service improvement recommendations to the Council.
25. Ms X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Consideration of the stage two investigation

26. As I have said above, if a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure, we do not normally re-investigate the original complaint unless we consider that the stage two investigation was flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
27. I consider that the Investigating Officer’s investigation was appropriate, proportionate, thorough, and well-balanced. I do not find that his investigation was flawed. For this reason, I have not re-investigated Ms X’s original complaints. However, I will address Miss X’s concerns about the stage two investigation.

Email from a social worker

28. Ms X complains that the Investigating Officer said he saw an email from a social worker informing Ms X that she was leaving the Council but says the stage three panel said this email did not exist. She says the Council claimed the email was sent a few days before the social worker left the Council, but she says the email was sent on the day the social worker left.
29. The Investigating Officer said in his report that the case notes show the social worker sent Ms X an email shortly before she left the Council. The stage three panel said the case file did not have a copy of the email sent by the social worker.
30. I have seen the case note which says the social worker sent Ms X that email. The note says the email told Ms X that she was leaving “next week”. However, the case file does not have a copy of the email itself. It is my view that this is what the panel refers to: that there was no copy of the email itself, only a note that says the email was sent.
31. I cannot say when the email was sent or what it said. However, the stage three panel fully upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint. Therefore, the statutory complaints process has already found fault here.
32. I do not find that this shows an inaccuracy in the Investigating Officer’s investigation. It is my view that the case note of the email is a sufficient record to show the email was sent. For this reason, I do not find fault with the Investigating Officer’s investigation.

Eligibility for the Children with Disabilities team

33. Ms X complains that the Council said B did not meet the eligibility criteria for support from the Child with Disabilities team, but says there were no published criteria.
34. The Council told the Investigating Officer that the eligibility criteria came from certain laws (the Children Act and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act). The Investigating Officer did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint. However, he recognised that it would be helpful if the Council had its own eligibility criteria so parents could more easily understand how the Council applied the law.
35. I find it entirely appropriate that the Council applied thresholds set down in law to determine whether B, and other children, were eligible for support from the Child with Disabilities team. The Council is entitled to do this. I agree with the Investigating Officer’s decision not to uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint.
36. I note that the Council has now published its own criteria, which are available online. This is positive.

Inaccuracies in an assessment

37. The Investigating Officer upheld the part of Ms X’s complaint about numerous inaccuracies in a Child and Family assessment. Ms X complains that the Investigating Officer did not investigate each of the 27 reported inaccuracies and held no-one to account for them.
38. Investigating officers have a right to determine how to conduct complaint investigations. In this case, I find that the Investigating Officer carried out a proportionate investigation and appropriately upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint. I do not consider that the Investigating Officer should have investigated each reported inaccuracy.
39. I therefore do not find that this shows the Investigating Officer’s investigation was flawed.
40. Ms X complains that the Council should have a note on its system to reflect that the Investigating Officer found inaccuracies in that assessment. I am satisfied that the Council’s records reflect the reported inaccuracies in that assessment.

Interviewee amendments not used

41. The Investigating Officer interviewed professionals over the phone, rather than in person, because of COVID-19. He then sent them a written summary of their comments. Professionals were asked to tell the Investigating Officer if they agreed with his summary or if they wanted to make any amendments.
42. Ms X complains that the Investigating Officer did not use the amended comments from a professional.
43. The Investigating Officer says he did not receive the amendments from this professional, so his report was based on his notes of their phone interview.
44. I find that the differences between the Investigating Officer’s summary of that phone call and the professional’s amendments are relatively minor. I do not find it likely that the amendments would have made any significant or substantial difference to the Investigating Officer’s findings. For this reason, I do not consider it significant enough to constitute fault.
45. I do not consider that this shows the Investigating Officer’s investigation was flawed. Further, I do not consider that the Investigating Officer misrepresented that professional’s views.

Who was interviewed

46. Ms X complains that the Investigating Officer did not interview ‘the right people’.
47. I have seen the list of the people interviewed as part of the Investigating Officer’s investigation. I am satisfied that he interviewed an appropriate range of professionals. I do not find that he should have interviewed anyone else.
48. For this reason, I do not find that the Investigating Officer’s investigation was flawed.

The Council’s records of Ms X

49. Ms X complains that the Council’s records say she might have Munchausen’s by proxy. She says the Council said it would put a note on its records to say this was unfounded.
50. I have seen extracts of the Council’s case file and am satisfied that there is an appropriate record to say this was unfounded. There is no fault here.

Recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three review panel

51. As I have said above, where we find the Investigating Officer’s investigation was not flawed, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
52. In this case, I am satisfied that the Council has apologised to Ms X and made a payment to her to reflect the avoidable distress and Ms X’s time and trouble.
53. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the stage two and stage three findings. I am also satisfied that the Council has completed the stage two and three recommendations regarding service improvements.
54. For this reason, I find no fault in the way the Council handled Ms X’s complaint.

Private therapy

55. Ms X complains that she asked the Investigating Officer and the stage three review panel to order the Council to pay for private therapy for her. She says she wants the private therapy because the Council has caused her so much stress and trauma.
56. The Investigating Officer was unable to find that the Council’s actions regarding this complaint caused the stress and trauma she describes. This is because Ms X says she has fought the Council about so many issues over the years. It was for this reason the Investigating Officer did not feel able to recommend private therapy for Ms X as a result of this complaint.
57. The Council has considered the impact of the faults (the injustice) caused to Ms X and made a payment to her, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. This is appropriate. I am satisfied that the action the Council has taken in light of this complaint remedies the injustice caused to Ms X. I therefore do not consider any further remedy – financial or otherwise – appropriate or necessary in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Part of the complaint that I did not investigate

Safeguarding referral

59. Ms X complains that she did not find out until the stage three review panel that a safeguarding referral had been made about an incident she complained of.
60. As I have said in paragraph six, the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply.
61. The Council has not had an opportunity to investigate or reply to this part of Ms X’s complaint so I cannot consider it now. If Ms X wishes to complain to the Council that she was not told a safeguarding referral had been made, she can do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman