Summary: Miss D and Mr E complained about the Council’s statutory complaint investigation. They said the Council did not take their complaint seriously or deal with it professionally. Miss D and Mr E said this left them distressed and without a financial remedy. The Council was at fault for a short delay in stage two of its complaint investigation. We do not consider this caused Miss D and Mr E significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss D and Mr E complained about the Council’s statutory complaint investigation. They said the Council did not take their complaint seriously or deal with it professionally. Specifically, they complained the Council did not:
• promptly agree to consider their complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure.
• help them access advocacy.
• uphold their complaint about Miss D’s trust fund being incorrectly managed.
• send them the full stage two report.
• investigate Miss D’s complaint about her education.
2. Miss D and Mr E said the Council’s failure to investigate their complaint properly left them distressed and without a financial remedy.

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 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. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered:
• Miss D and Mr E’s complaint and the information they provided;
• documents supplied by the Council; and
• relevant legislation and guidelines.
8. Miss D and Mr E and the Council commented on a draft decision. I l considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

9. The handling and consideration of complaints under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages. (Department of Education, 2006, Statutory guidance for local authority children’s services on representations and complaints procedures)
10. Stage one: Staff at point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint.
11. Stage two: An investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent and fair.
12. The IO writes a stage two report which includes:
• details of findings, conclusions and outcomes against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and
• recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
13. Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as Adjudicating Officer (AO) and consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The AO will prepare a response to the reports and should invite the complainant to an adjudication meeting, either before or after writing their adjudication. In the AO’s response, the complainant should be informed of their right to approach the Ombudsman at any time (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others)
14. Stage three: The complaint is considered by a review panel. The Panel must consist of three independent people. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 19(2) and 20(1)).
15. The council must send its response to the panel’s recommendations to the complainant within 15 days of receiving the panel’s report. The response should set out how the council will respond to the recommendations and what action will be taken. (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others)
16. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:
• 10 days at stage one (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or extra time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage two (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to ask for a Review Panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage three;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the local authority to respond to the findings (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).

COVID-19

17. From March to May 2020, England was in the first of three national lockdowns. People could only leave their home for limited purposes including travelling to and from work, but only where this was absolutely necessary. In May 2020, the Government said people who could not work from home should return to the workplace. In September 2020, the Government announced new restrictions including working from home. A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020. The third national lockdown was in place from January to March 2021.

What happened

18. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
19. Miss D is a recent care leaver. She is in a relationship with Mr E.
20. With the support of an advocate, Miss D complained to the Council in September 2020. Council acknowledged the complaint and said it would investigate at stage one of the statutory complaint’s procedure. Miss D asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two. The Council agreed.
21. The Council spoke to Miss D. Miss D and the Council agreed the main areas for the stage two investigation:
• The Council had not provided suitable housing.
• The Council failed to protect her by moving her out of area.
• The Council did not safeguard her when she received inheritance.
• The Council did not help her to move.
• The Council did not respond to her requests for help.
22. Mr E had issues he wanted included in the complaint. He emailed these to the Council. The Council agreed Miss D and Mr E could make a joint complaint.
23. The Council assigned an IP and IO to the case in September 2020.
24. Miss D asked the Council for a new advocate. She did not think the advocate she had been working with could represent their best interests. The Council contacted three advocacy organisations, and Miss D chose one to work with.
25. The IP and IO arranged to meet Miss D and Mr E. At their request, the Council arranged for the meeting to be held in a different Council area. Miss D cancelled the meeting because she wanted a legal representative to attend.
26. Miss D could not secure legal representation and said she wanted to go ahead with the meeting. The meeting was held online in December 2020. The IO, IP, advocate, Miss D and Mr E attended.
27. The IO sent Miss D and Mr E a draft statement of complaint. Miss E told the Council she wanted to complain about the IO and IP.
28. In January 2021, the Council met with Miss D, Mr E and their advocate to discuss how to move forward. Miss D and Mr E said they had not been supported to make the complaint and the statement of complaint did not include Mr E’s complaints.
29. Miss D decided she wanted a new advocate. The Council referred her to and gave her details of other advocacy services.
30. The Council assigned the investigation to a new IO and IP. They met with Miss D and Mr E in January and February 2021. In February 2021, the IO stepped down. The Council assigned a new IO.
31. The IO and IP met with Miss D and Mr E. Miss D and Mr E did not agree with the statements of complaint drafted by the IO. They provided their own statement of complaint. This was accepted by the IO in March 2021. However, Miss D and Mr E refused to sign the statement.
32. There were 24 complaints in the statement of complaint. In summary they complained the Council:
• failed to assess and safeguard Miss D.
• assigned her a male worker.
• did not secure her property.
• did not provide Miss D with accommodation.
• gave the police false information about Mr E.
• shared information with the Department of Work and Pensions.
• did not take their complaint seriously.
33. They also complained about the management of Miss E’s trust fund and the services provided by their advocate. They said because of the Council failures Miss D missed education, was left in Mr E’s care and this caused Mr E inconvenience and financial loss.
34. The IO completed their report in May 2021. The IO did not uphold 23 of the 24 complaints and made no finding about one.
35. They recommended the Council:
• review its existing policies and procedures for Pathway planning to include specific guidance for practitioners in instances where the young person refuses to engage in the review of their Pathway Plan.
• continued to progress its improvement plan following the OFSTED inspection of care leaver services in 2019.
• give Miss D another copy of her Pathway Plans, reviews and housing options documents. The Council should ensure these have a clear document name and date.
36. The IP’s completed their report in June 2021. It agreed with the investigating officer’s findings stating, “I am in full agreement with the findings and conclusions of the IO and believe she has reached balanced conclusions, based on the written evidence available and the information gained from interviews held during the investigation.”
37. The IO and the Council offered to meet with Miss D and Mr E to share and discuss the report. The Council provided Miss D and Mr E an Easy Read version of the investigating officers report so they could quickly see the answers to their complaints.
38. The Council sent its stage two adjudication letter in July 2021. The Council advised it agreed with the IO’s report and the decision not to uphold their complaints. The Council said it would action all the investigating officer’s recommendations. It enclosed the full investigating officer’s report.
39. Miss D told the Council she wanted to go to stage three. The Council arranged the stage three panel and shared documents with attendees, including Miss D, in advance.
40. The Council held the stage three panel in August 2021. Miss D and Mr E attended. It considered the stage two investigation and agreed with its findings. The panel recommended the Council:
• explain to Miss D her status as a care leaver, and the differences between Pathway Plans and Housing option plans.
• find out whether the Council has any of Miss D’s property and how it can be returned to her.
• provide Miss D with information about an advocacy service.
41. The Council sent its stage three adjudication letter in September 2021. The Council said it agreed with the stage three panel’s findings and confirmed it would action the recommendations it made. The Council apologised for unavoidable delays in the complaint procedure caused by COVID-19.
42. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence it actioned the stage two and three recommendations.

Analysis

43. Although Miss D complained in September 2020, I have not taken this as the start date for the complaint investigation. Between September 2020 and February 2021, the Council’s investigation was delayed by circumstances out of its control. Miss D and Mr E complained about the first IO and IP assigned to the case, the second IO stepped down, and there were two national lockdowns due to COVID-19. Therefore, I have taken the start date for the stage two investigation as February 2021. There was a slight delay in the Council’s stage two complaint investigation. Although this delay was fault, I do not consider it to have caused Miss D and Mr E significant injustice because the Council was in contact with them throughout the period of delay.
44. When a Council has considered a complaint using the statutory complaints procedure, we normally would not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of the concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless there are serious and fundamental flaws in the way the Council investigated the complaint.
45. I did not find any flaws in the way the Council considered the complaint beyond the short delay. There was no fault in the Council, the IO and IP or stage three panel’s decision making. At stage two, the IO considered the evidence available when making their findings, which the IP supported. Miss D and Mr E’s concerns about the stage two investigation were then thoroughly considered by the stage three panel. Throughout the complaint investigation, the Council listened to Miss D and Mr E’s requests, and where possible, acted on them. I found no evidence of unprofessional practice. As I did not find any serious or fundamental flaws with the Council’s complaint investigation, I did not reinvestigate the substantive matters.
46. With regards the specific matters Miss D and Mr E raised listed in paragraph 1:
• The Council was not at fault for first offering a stage one response as this was in line with the statutory children’s complaint procedure. When Miss D asked to go straight to stage two, the Council considered her request and used its discretion to do so.
• The Council referred Miss D for advocacy and gave her details of advocacy organisations. If Miss D and Mr E were unhappy about the services they received, they can complain direct to those organisations.
• The Council has no influence over, or responsibility for, the decisions made by Miss D’s trust.
• The Council sent them an easy read version of the stage two report so they could quickly see the answers to their complaints. The Council then met with them to discuss the report and provided the report in full. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions.
• The stage two investigation report and stage three panel considered Miss D’s complaint about the Council failing to promote her education. Neither upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation and found fault with the Council for a short delay in it’s stage two complaint investigation. This did not cause Miss D or Mr E injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman