Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms B’s complaint through the statutory complaint process.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about the way the Council considered her complaint through the statutory complaint process. She was unhappy with the Council’s adjudication and the remedies offered for the injustice it caused.
2. She said the Council caused distress to her family and this was not properly recognised in the Councils response.

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. 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 spoke to Ms B and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response with relevant law and guidance.
6. Ms B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Statutory Complaints

7. Section 26(3) of the Children Act, 1989 says all functions of the local authority under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
8. The handling and consideration of complaints under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages: Stage 1 - Local Resolution, Stage 2 - Investigation and Stage 3 - Review Panel. (Department of Education, 2006, Statutory guidance for local authority children’s services on representations and complaints procedures)
9. At 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.
10. The IO writes a stage two report which includes:
• details of findings, conclusions and outcomes are against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and
• recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
11. 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).

What happened

12. What follows is summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
13. In 2019 Ms B became a carer for D when their mother could not look after them.
14. Following assessments and a family court hearing a Child Arrangement Order was made for D to remain with Ms B. A contact schedule was agreed for D and their mother.
15. In March 2020 Ms B complained to the Council. She complained about the actions and practice of the social workers involved. She said D’s voice was not heard and they had no relationship with their mother but that was not taken into account.
16. The Council did not uphold any of Ms B’s complaint. She asked for it to be escalated and added further complaint issues.
17. The complaint was put on hold while the case went to court. In September 2020 the Council started the statutory complaint process. The Council appointed an IO and IP.
18. The complaint investigation upheld some of Ms B’s complaints and made recommendations. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations.
19. Ms B was unhappy with the Councils adjudication at stage two and asked for her complaint to be considered at stage three.
20. The panel agreed with most of the stage two findings and recommendations. It added some further recommendations. It recommended some of the complaints were changed from ‘not upheld’ to ‘inconclusive’. The Council also accepted this.
21. The Councils stage three adjudication accepted the panels findings and recommendations. The Council also offered Ms B a payment of £300 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble it caused her.
22. Ms B remained unhappy with the final response and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

23. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we would generally not reinvestigate the substantive issues simply because the complainant was unhappy with the outcome.
24. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless a complainant can point to and evidence serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.
25. I did not find fault with the way the Council handled Ms B’s complaint. It followed the correct process, and I did not have concerns about the investigation.
26. The Council already conducted a thorough investigation at stage two and stage three. It upheld some of Ms B’s complaint.
27. It agreed recommendations which provided a suitable remedy for the injustice to Ms B and D. It also agreed to service improvements to reduce the likelihood of repeated fault in the future.
28. The Council provided evidence of the work it has done in relation to the agreed recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. I did not investigate the substantive part of the complaint. I did not find fault with the statutory complaint investigation, so reinvestigation is not necessary or warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman