Summary: there was fault by the Council in that it delayed in its consideration of Ms C’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The consideration of the complaint was thorough and agreed action was taken on some of the upheld complaints but the Council will now take further action to remedy some parts of the complaint for which no remedy was previously offered

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains there was fault in the Council’s consideration of her complaint about the services it provided and its actions during the period that her son was the subject of a child protection plan in that it:

1. delayed in completing its consideration of the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure;
2. failed to conduct the investigation of the complaint properly by failing to interview relevant staff and considering insufficient information/evidence;
3. failed to offer an acceptable remedy payment to recognise the impact of any of the faults identified in the complaints that were upheld including the delayed handling of the complaint and impact of the removal of the support from the Intensive Family Support Team and Home Care; and
4. failed to provide evidence that it completed other actions agreed at the end of the consideration of the complaint by the stage 3 review panel including the immediate review of the EHC Plan.

2. Ms C says the impact of the faults was insufficient support for her and her son and frustration around the delayed handling of her complaint.

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. 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. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Ms C and considered the information she provided in her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision.
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.
8. 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

What I found

What should have happened

9. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”. In that guidance we suggested that councils should be realistic with complaints about timescales for dealing with complaints and ensuring that reasons for any delays were given. We also emphasised the importance of continuing to deal effectively with the most serious issues whilst recognising that capacity for handling complaints may have been reduced for a period of time.
10. Under the Children Act 1989 a child is “in need” if they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services by the council or if their health or development is likely to be significantly or further impaired without such services. A child in need plan details what support is being provided by a council to a child in need. The plan is reviewed periodically.
11. Councils have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries where they suspect a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. If concerns are substantiated the Council may convene a child protection case conference. This is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The conference may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm. Subsequent review child protection case conference(s) consider progress made and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued. A core group of key professionals oversees and monitors the plan.
12. Social workers should provide parents of children who are subject of a child protection conference with a copy of the social work report before the meeting.
13. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.

Background

14. Ms C ‘s son, X, was made the subject of a child protection plan in 2016 after support provided under a child in need plan failed to bring about change at home and this seems to largely have been the result of a lack of engagement by the family with the Council’s children’s social care team. X has special needs in the form of Aspergers and cerebral palsy. The Council believed these needs were not being met due partly to a lack of routine and other concerns about Ms C’s parenting capacity. X had also missed a lot of school in 2016.
15. The child protection plan was ended at a review case conference in June 2018.

What happened

16. Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services team has been considered at all three stages of the children’s statutory complaints procedure.

Stage 1

17. I am not clear when Ms C submitted her first complaint. However, the response at stage 1 was provided in early March 2019. The complaint related to concerns about a review case conference in March 2018. Ms C complained about a number of issues including that a number of professionals at the meeting left before the meeting ended but their votes on whether to extend or end Ms C’s son’s continued child protection plan were taken into account anyway, the chair refused to adjourn the meeting when Ms C had to leave to collect her son and the meeting failed to consider what support had been put in place to support Ms C and her son. Some parts of the complaint were partially upheld but most were not. The letter told Ms C of her right to ask for the matter to be considered at stage 2 of the procedure. Ms C went on to request escalation to stage 2.

Stage 2

18. In July 2019 the independent person and investigating officer appointed to undertake the stage 2 investigation visited Ms C to discuss the complaint and agreed this in August 2019. The stage 2 report details how the stage 2 investigation was undertaken and what information was obtained. It confirms the investigator:
• reviewed key documents, case records; and
• interviewed key people except the social worker who worked with X during the period he was on a child protection plan. He explained that the social worker had retired and he had tried to contact her but had been unable to. He therefore said that he had relied on the information in the case record and the information the social worker provided to the person who had provided the response at stage 1.
19. The summary of the complaint investigated at stage 2 was broadly:
• whilst Ms C’s son was subject of a child protection plan, the Council failed to provide appropriate services including those detailed in the child protection plan including making a referral to CAMHS, providing help to get X to school and providing agreed respite care and a programme of social inclusion. As a consequence Ms C paid for care for X herself;
• the child protection plan was not “stepped down” to a child in need plan at a child protection review meeting as she had been led to believe would happen;
• she was not given documents for the next child protection review conference as they should have been; and
• her confidentiality was breached.
20. The investigator at stage 2 upheld Ms C’s complaints about the child protection case conference. The completed stage 2 complaint report is dated March 2020.
21. The stage 2 adjudication was issued by the Deputy Director of Children’s Social Care in late May 2020. It:
• recognised the delay in completing the consideration of the stage 2 investigation and offered Ms C £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience this caused her;
• upheld complaints about some elements of the handling of the review case conference meeting in March 2018 including the complaint that the chair allowed three of the professional attending to leave before the end but considered their votes anyway, that the conference continued even though Ms C had to leave to collect her son form school, the chair failed to use his discretionary powers to end the plan and that the chair allowed detailed discussion of historical information and failed to chair the meeting professionally; and
• did not uphold the complaints that the Council failed to refer X to CAMHS, failure to reinstate support to get X to school after he changed education provider and failed to provide respite care and failed to provide a service to improve X’s social inclusion. Ms C said all these were identified in the child protection plan.
22. The adjudicator apologised for the upheld complaints and that X remained on a CP plan for three months longer because of errors in the handling of the March review meeting. He said that feedback and advice would be provided to the conference chair and shared with the training and development team to endure they did not happen in future. He also provided Ms C with an action plan detailing what other actions would be taken as a result of her complaint. He told Ms C of her right to ask for the matter to be considered by an independent review panel at stage 3 of the complaints procedure but advised these were currently on hold because of the Covid-19 pandemic but that would be reviewed in line with government guidance.

Action taken following the outcome of stage 2 of the complaint

23. The Council put together a nine point action plan following completion of its consideration of Ms C’s complaint. It included:
• Offer to speak to Ms C about the reason the child protection remained in place following the review case conference in March 2018;
• Apologise to Ms C for allowing the review conference to continue after Ms C had to leave to collect her son from school;
• In future to consider whether lengthy child protection case conference meetings should be split into two meetings;
• To consider adjourning meetings if a parent had to leave due to reasons they could not control and if not to ensure that meeting chairs gave parents clear reasons for the decision reached and record this in the meeting minutes;
• To offer Ms C a payment to acknowledge the delay in completing the stage 2 investigation;
• To draw up a protocol to ensure that the Council’s human resources team would enable contact with social workers or others who had left the council’s employment to be contacted if needed with an investigation such as in this complaint;
• Consider the practice of professionals being allowed to vote in children protection case conferences if they left the meeting before the end;
• Apologise to Ms C as X remained the subject of a child protection plan for three months longer than necessary; and
• Consider issuing additional guidance to child protection co-ordinators on how to proceed where child protection meeting were very long.

Stage 3

24. Ms C did ask for a review panel in July 2020 and the review panel meeting took place in February 2021. The findings of that review panel were the same as those upheld in the stage 2 adjudication with the addition of upholding a complaint about the provision of services relates to the withdrawal of intensive family support and home care.
25. The Director of Children’s Services wrote to Ms C with the adjudication of stage 3 in March 2021. He re-offered the £200 payment to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delayed consideration of Ms C’s complaint. He also said that in response to a recent concern from Ms C about X’s education, the Council would arrange an immediate review of X’s EHC Plan to address this as recommended by the stage 3 panel. The panel also recommended that the Council consider a direct payment or an individual budget so that Ms C could make arrangements for activities given the difficulties and delays there had been around that. The Council agreed this would be considered during the review of the EHC Plan.

Action taken by the Council following stage 2 and 3 recommendations

26. The head of service spoke to Ms C by telephone in July 2020 and they discussed her concerns about how the case conference in March 2018 was handled and her reassured her processes were being followed and learning from her complaint was being put in place.
27. The stage 2 adjudication letter offered Ms C a payment to recognise the delay in the handling of her complaint. It also apologised for allowing the case conference to continue after she left. Apologise to Ms C as X remained the subject of a child protection plan for three months longer than necessary.
28. The Council confirms it considered drawing up a protocol with its HR team to enable contact with former employees to assist in investigations such as in this case. It concluded however that it could only request that former staff participate and had to be mindful of date protection laws in relation to staff who had left more than seven years previously. It confirmed the police would have the right to interview former staff if the matter related to any criminal matters.
29. It has reviewed its guidance for child protection co-ordinators stating that, unless they have provided a written report in advance which contains a recommendation, professionals will be told at the beginning of meetings that their attendance will be required for the whole of the meeting as they will not be able to provide a view on what decision they consider should be reached if they a have no heard all the information presented. If they have provided a report in advance stating a view they may be permitted to leave early or not attend but that this should be avoided where at all possible. Also that meetings over two hours should be exceptional. Also that where meetings may go beyond two hours consideration will be given to splitting the meeting into splitting into shorter meetings or adjourning at the point two hours is reached.
30. A review of X’s EHC Plan was arranged and took place in May 2021.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

31. From beginning to end the complaints process took at least two years to complete. I say at least because it is clear that the stage 1 complaint was made in at least March 2019 and possibly before though I do not have a copy of it. Ms C asked for the matter to be progressed to stage 2 by July 2019 and the stage 2 adjudication was issued in May 2020 which is 10 months later. The timescale for completing the stage consideration is 25 days with extension toa maximum of 65 working days. So, the time taken on this complaint is very significantly outside that. The stage 3 was requested in July 2020 but the panel did not meet until February 2021 and the stage 3 adjudication issued in March 2021. So, the period from request to issue of the final decision was eight months. I recognise that there were restrictions in place during Covid-19 that did affect this but, having taken into account our guidance on this, I do not consider Ms C was given any indication of a timescale, no reasons beyond the existence of Covid 19 restrictions and a seeming blanket decision that no stage 3 review panels could be arranged even though the eventual panel meeting took place remotely. There are no explanations for the delay in either the notes of the panel meeting or the stage 3 adjudication letter. I consider the significant delays at stages 2 and 3 amount to fault and that these caused Ms C injustice in the form of avoidable frustration.
32. There are no grounds that persuade me I should consider the investigation at stage 2 was not conducted thoroughly and properly given the circumstances. It is the case that the investigator was unable to interview the person who was X’s social worker at the time X was on the child protection plan but the investigator did try to contact her and was able to access written records and details of her involvement in the stage 1 complaint. It is unfortunate he was unable to contact the social worker but he did try to and I do not consider that the failure to successfully contact her amounts to fault or that the investigation was flawed as a result of this as the investigator relied on alternative sources of information that were acceptable.
33. The Council offered a payment to recognise delay in the handling of the complaint. I do not consider the payment offered is sufficient to recognise this and will make a recommendation about this below.
34. The Council did not offer any remedy to recognise the impact of the removal support by the Intensive Family Support Team and Home Care even though this part of the complaint was upheld by the stage 3 adjudication. Nor did if offer any remedy to recognise the impact of X remaining of a child protection plan for three months longer than necessary. I will address this further below.
35. The EHC Plan was reviewed quite promptly after the outcome of the stage 3 consideration. This recommendation was made the panel as a result of a concern she raised at the review panel meeting and which did not form part of the original complaint. Consideration of direct payments were a matter for that review to consider and I will not consider the merits of any decisions taken on that.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. To recognise the injustice caused by the fault identified above, within one month of the final decision on this complaint, the Council will:
• make a payment of £250 to recognise the avoidable frustration caused by the delay in the handling of Ms C’s complaint;
• make a further payment of £250 to recognise the avoidable distress caused by X remaining on a child protection plan for three months longer than necessary; and
• make an additional payment of £250 to recognise the opportunity lost as a result of the failure to reinstate Home Care and Intensive Family Support.
37. In addition the Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision on this complaint, provide us with evidence of how it tracks progress on complaints being considered under the statutory children’s complaints procedure to ensure that the statutory deadlines under this are met.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was fault by the Council in that it delayed in its consideration of Ms C’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure though the consideration of the complaint was thorough. Action agreed at the end of stages 2 and 3 of the complaints procedure was taken but the Council will now take further action to remedy some parts of the complaint that were upheld but for which no remedy has yet been offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman