Summary: There is fault in the Council’s handling of Ms B’s complaint to the Council in May 2020 regarding actions and decisions taken by its children’s services team. The Council will arrange to consider this complaint properly now and make a payment to recognise the avoidable frustration and time and trouble its poor handling of the matter has caused

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, says the Council failed to respond properly to her complaint in May 2021 as its response was inadequate and although it agreed to provide a further response to the complaint it then failed to do so.
2. The complain is made on Ms B’s behalf by a representative from a specialist organisation. I shall refer to the representative as Ms C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Ms C and considered the written information she provided with the complaint. I have obtained information for from the Council about its handling of the complaints Ms C made on Ms B’s behalf.
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.
7. Ms 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

What should have happened

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 Independent Investigator 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.
9. Complaints that may be considered under the statutory procedure are mostly matters that relate to part 3 of the Children Act 1989. This includes services provided to support children in families including for example, services to children in need, children who are looked after by the council and leaving care services. Part 5 of the Children Act 1989 relates to child protection and some matters in this part of the Act may be considered under the statutory complaints procedure.
10. The Council has a two stage corporate complaints procedure. A response is provided at the first stage within 20 working days and if the complainant remains dissatisfied they can ask for a review which will be provided in 15 working days of the request.

What happened

Background

11. In February 2020, Ms B and her child left the family home because of domestic violence perpetrated by her husband. The Council provided, and paid for, bed and breakfast accommodation and then a self-contained studio flat until mid-March. It then told Ms B it was moving her to a room in a hostel with a shared bathroom. Ms B said this was unsuitable. She made an application to court about the Council’s failure to provide Ms B with suitable self-contained accommodation for her and her child and to pay accrued rent arrears. The Court heard the case in May and June 2020 and the Council agreed both to pay the arrears and to provide suitable accommodation.
12. Ms B is also unhappy with actions of social workers connected to this including, for example, an allegation that social workers told the letting agent of the studio flat accommodation that its staff should contact the police to evict Ms B and threats that it would seek to remove her child if she returned to live with her husband. She was also unhappy about an out-of-hours home visit in May 2020 and about the actions of the social worker during that visit.

Ms B’s initial complaint to the Council

13. In early May Ms C emailed the Council to complain that a social worker visited Ms B at 10pm the previous evening saying the social failed to tell Ms B that she could refuse access and that the social worker had not been wearing suitable protective clothing given the current Covid-19 pandemic and that she had not properly socially distanced in the property. She went on to ask why the social worker had believed Ms B’s husband may have been in the property and why the social worker did not attend with a police officer in order that her husband could be arrested. Ms C followed this up a few days later to say that having sought advice she believed the Council had breached Ms B’s human rights in entering Ms B’s property without consent.
14. The Council responded a few days later having spoken to the out of hours social worker. The response included an explanation of the reason for the hour of hours visit. Ms C replied shortly after stating the response had not dealt with the main issue she had raised or provided the remedy Ms B wanted. She reiterated that Ms B had not been told of her right to refuse the social worker right of entry and that this was the main point of the complaint as it breached Ms B’s human rights under Article 8. She refuted the social worker’s point that she had remined suitably distanced. She asked for a further response.
15. The complaints manager wrote to Ms C in late May to confirm the matter would now be considered under the Council’s complaints procedure and to say it was investigating the following areas of complaint:
1. A social worker who visited Ms B at night in May 2020 did not tell Ms B that she could refuse to allow her in;
2. The social worker did not observe Covid-19 safe behaviour when she visited. Specifically she did not wear protective clothing or keep 2 metres from Ms B;
3. There were no grounds for the social worker to have believed that Ms B’s husband may have been present on the night of the visit so asked the social care team to justify the reason for the visit.
16. The complaints manager invited Ms C to contact the Council if this was not the complaint she had made or wanted investigated. Ms C responded promptly to say she was happy with the summary of the first two of the points (a) and b) above)but asked for the third to be amended. The Council duly amended point c) using the exact wording Ms C requested they use.
17. The Council provided its response to the complaint in early June 2020. The complaint response was provided by the manager of the out-of-hours team and the manager of the social work team. In brief the letter stated:
• Ms B had not said she did not want the social worker not to enter her home and that the social worker had asked Ms B if it was ok for her to come in. The Council did accept though that the social worker did not explicitly tell her she had a right to refuse entry;
• Accepted that the social worker had not been wearing any PPE but the social worker confirmed she had sanitised her hands before entering and that she believed she had kept a safe distance from Ms B. The Council said that it would reconsider how out of hours social workers talk to families about PPE and social distancing as a result of the complaint; and
• The reason for the social work visit was that the council was concerned that Ms B and her child may have returned to her former partner’s home as a result of her unhappiness with the accommodation offered to her by the Council and that social workers had been unable to successfully contact Ms B when they visited or by text. The Council said that it had made clear that social work temas needed to make the reasons they had requested a visit from the out of hours team clear when they asked them to visit in future.
18. The Council’s letter of June apologised to Ms B and that lessons had been learned as a result of the issues raised in the complaint. The letter advised Ms C what to do next if she was unhappy with the response to her complaint.
19. Ms C provided an email response to the Council’s June letter the same day it was sent. She said it seemed her complaint had been fully upheld but that the letter had failed to respond to the points she had made about the breach of human rights and that this was the main point of her complaint. She said she did not wish to complain further but wanted confirmation that the Council was apologising to Ms B for its breach of her human rights.
20. In mid-July the out of hours manager provided a response on this point directly to Ms B and emailed a copy of this to Ms C. The manager apologised to her for the distress she was caused as a result of the unannounced visit in May. The manager said he did not consider Ms B’s human rights had been breached as a result of the social worker not telling her that she could refuse her entry because the social worker asked if it was ok for her to come in and Ms B allowed her in. The manager told Ms B however that in future social workers would make it clear to parents they visited that they did not have to let the social worker in.

Ms B’s second complaint to the Council

21. Ms C and her manager then sent a joint letter of complaint to the Council’s Chief Executive and Leader on Ms B’s behalf. This was a five page letter that I have read carefully. The letter provides a large amount of background to Ms B’s circumstances and provides a lot of information about accommodation provided by the Council to Ms B, the unsuitability of that in her view and the Council’s action related to that accommodation. In her letter Ms C confirms that she instructed lawyers to act on Ms B’s behalf in relation to the issues regarding the accommodation and that a judge made an order earlier ion May regarding the accommodation provided and the Council’s role in paying for that. She confirmed that a further order would be made in early June. She went on to refer to the Council “subjecting Ms B to this constant fear” and had failed to properly safeguard Ms B or her daughter. She went on to say that the Council had breached Ms B’s human rights with regards to an announced night -time social work visit and said that Ms B wanted an apology for that. She said that in addition to the points she had already made in her email complaints that she wanted the following additional questions addressed:
• Was the reason for the Council’s actions to keep costs down
• Did anyone in CSC recognise this was wrong?
• Where did the housing advice originate from?
• Why did no-one recognise the actions were wrong?
• Was she given half answers in the hope she would go away?
• Had the council behaved in such a way previously?
• Why did it take court action to remedy the housing situation?
• Was the exceptional of the council to made such flawed decision?
• How would the council restore Ms B’s confidence in its ability to support and safeguard her and her child?
22. In early June a member of staff in the Chief Executive’s office responded to Ms C confirming receipt and said she had logged the complaint as one to the Chief Executive’s office so the Chief Executive could personally oversee its progression. She said that the other complaint was being considered under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and that this second complaint would also be registered under that process and consideration would progress immediately to stage 2.
23. Ms C spoke to the complaints manager in mid-June. A follow up email from the complaints manager confirms that by then the Council had decided the matter could not be considered under the statutory process because it had been considered in court and a judgment made. So, she said the Council’s Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council would consider further how to consider the complaint. She said the original complaint would still be considered and a response provided on that shortly.
24. In late July the Council’s Chief Executive emailed Ms C apologising for delay in responding. He said the Director of Children’s Services had reviewed the case and how to avoid such faults occurring in the future. He then detailed the lessons learned in relation to issues that had occurred in relation to the handling of the provision of accommodation for Ms B and apologised for this.
25. In early August 2020 Ms C replied to the Chief Executive stating many of the issues raised in the complaint she had submitted to him and the Leader of the Council in May had not been addressed and so the response was inadequate.
26. Shortly after the Head of the Chief Executive’s office replied stating she was following up in the Chief Executive’s absence. She said the Director of children’s services had left but that she would pass the matter on to the new Director for a further response. Ms C says that no further response was provided. She accepts that she did not chase up a response and says that instead she complained to this office at the end of March 2021.

Ms C’s complaints to this office

27. In July 2021 Ms C told us that her complaint to the Council was about the lack of humanity in the Council’s handling of Ms B’s case. Specifically, she says it was about the Council’s:
• lack of compassion;
• failure to conduct a risk assessment;
• use of threats including to remove Ms B’s daughter if she did not comply with the Council’s wishes;
• failure to check her understanding;
• failure to meet Ms B and her daughter’s needs;
• failure to consider the impact its actions had on Ms B’s mental wellbeing;
• provision of false and misleading information to Ms B;
• poor decision making including at one point threatening to send Ms B back to her county of origin;
• decision to stop paying for her accommodation;
• decision to harass Ms B rather than leave her in self-contained accommodation.
28. In October 2021 Ms C said to us that her complaint was that the Council:
• put Ms B in bed and breakfast accommodation where breakfast was not provided;
• with the exception of child protection case conferences it failed to provide Ms B with an interpreter in meetings including other meetings where her child’s care was discussed;
• left Ms B without money to buy nappies;
• wrongly offered to send Ms B back to her country of origin;
• threatened to remove Ms B’s baby from her care on numerous occasions;
• gave inaccurate information to Ms B’s landlords regarding eviction;
• a social worker visited Ms B late at night, failed to tell her she could refuse this visit and the social worker failed to use protective clothing and this was harassment; and
• told Ms B that she could pay for her accommodation even though she was unable to do so.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

29. There was significant confusion over the complaints made and the Council’s responses to them. Ms C says that she does not wish to pursue the first complaint any further.
30. I consider that the complaint made by Ms B in the letter from Ms C to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council in May (the second complaint) has not been properly dealt with by the Council: it was not forwarded for consideration under either the statutory children’s complaints procedure or the corporate procedure but was instead dealt with immediately by the Chief Executive. When Ms B was dissatisfied with the response the Chief Executive’s office agreed to pass it to the Head of Children’s Services for further consideration but no further response was provided. This is fault. It has caused injustice in the form of avoidable frustration and time and trouble as Ms B has had to complain to this office in order to resolve the issue of this complaint having not been properly considered by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. To remedy the injustice caused the Council will, within one month of the final decision on this complaint:
• apologise to Ms B for the identified fault in the handling of this complaint;
• pay Ms B a sum of £250 to recognise the injustice in the form of avoidable frustration and time and trouble caused by the poor handling of her second complaint; and
• arrange for the immediate consideration of Ms B’s second complaint from stage 2 of the relevant procedure. I consider the relevant procedure is the children’s statutory procedure and that the complaint should be allowed to progress through the whole of that three stage procedure if necessary. It seems clear that since making that complaint in May 2020 Ms C has become more precise in the complaints she would like addressed and so I recommend that the points she has raised in letters to our office in July and October 2021 are considered for inclusion in that investigation. I recognise that those issues that were directly considered in court cannot be further considered under the complaints procedure but it may be appropriate for matters related to that to be included. For example, the allegation that social workers advised the landlord to evict Ms B from the first accommodation it provided.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and issued a decision statement. There was fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint Ms C made to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council on Ms B’s behalf in May 2020. The Council will take the agreed action to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman