Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to act after he raised concerns about his son’s behaviour. He says this led to his son self-harming and being arrested. The Council has already accepted fault and offered remedies. Because of this, there is no remaining injustice significant enough to justify our involvement, and we have discontinued our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s failure to act after he raised concerns about his son’s behaviour in April 2018. He says this escalated until his son began self-harming and, eventually, was arrested by the Police.
2. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaint at all three stages of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mr B complains that, at stage 2, the investigating officer presented information in a way which demonstrated a lack of objectivity. He says the investigation took a wider scope than he had wanted, and was only upheld “on paper”, not “truly upheld”.
3. Mr B also complains about delays to the Council’s complaint responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. 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

6. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both parties 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?

7. The statutory guidance Getting the best from complaints sets out how councils should consider and respond to complaints under the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure.
8. There are three stages to the procedure: a local response from a council
   (stage 1), an independent investigation (stage 2), and a review panel (stage 3).
9. Stage 2 should be completed in 25 working days; however, if necessary, this can be extended to 65 working days.
10. After a stage 3 complaint is made, a review panel must be convened in
    30 working days. The panel then has five working days to issue its report, and the council then has 15 working days to respond to the panel’s findings.

What happened?

11. Mr B first complained to the Council in March 2020. He was not happy with how the Council handled his complaints, so approached the Ombudsman.
12. We found fault with the Council’s complaint-handling – specifically that it had not considered the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. In November 2020, the Council agreed to arrange an independent investigation of the complaint under stage 2 of the procedure.

Stage 2

13. In January 2021 the stage 2 investigator agreed with Mr B that he would investigate a single complaint (as set out in paragraph 1 of this decision statement). Mr B said he wanted the Council to accept its failures and apologise.
14. The investigator completed his report in early April, and the Council issued its stage 2 adjudication to Mr B shortly thereafter. The Council upheld Mr B’s complaint and apologised. It also agreed to train its staff to prevent similar failures in future.

Stage 3

15. In early May, Mr B told the Council he was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. He said:
• his son had not been offered a remedy for the Council’s failings;
• the investigator had not been objective, and had focused on things in his report which Mr B had not complained about; and
• he had been inaccurately accused of blocking access to his daughter’s records during the investigation.
16. He said he wanted:
• an age-appropriate apology letter to his son;
• the Council to offer a further remedy to recognise his son’s injustice;
• an independent review of the decision-making which led to his son’s arrest; and
• correction of case records.
17. He asked for a review panel to consider this at stage 3 of the complaints procedure.
18. The panel heard Mr B’s complaint at the end of June, and completed its report in early July. The Council sent Mr B its stage 3 – and final – response on 16 July.
19. In its response, the Council agreed to write an apology letter to Mr B’s son, and offered a financial remedy of £1,000 – £500 for Mr B, and the same for his son – to recognise their distress. It also offered Mr B’s son access to an independent advocate so he could discuss his experiences and think about further support he might need.
20. The Council did not agree that the stage 2 investigator had stepped outside the scope of the complaint in his investigation report. It also noted that Mr B’s complaint had been upheld by everyone involved at stage 2.
21. The Council apologised for what it felt was a miscommunication about Mr B’s daughter’s records. And it said Mr B could write a statement about what he believed were inaccurate records, and the statement would be placed on his son’s file.
22. The Council also told Mr B that it could not instigate a review of the decision-making which led to his son’s arrest, because that was a Police matter.
23. Mr B remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint, so approached the Ombudsman again. He repeated the concerns he had brought to the stage 3 panel, and added that there were delays at stages 2 and 3 of the complaints procedure.

My findings

24. There was a total delay of six working days over stages 2 and 3 of the complaints procedure. This did not cause Mr B an injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.
25. The Ombudsman says in our remedy guidance that, when we decide financial remedies, they “are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might”. Instead, we recommend token payments which ‘recognise’ an injustice.
26. Our guidance says a remedy payment for distress is often between £100 and £300 (although in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, more may be justified). This is because the Ombudsman is not an organisation which can properly decide the monetary value which should be placed on the ‘distress’ someone has suffered. Only a court can do this.
27. The Council’s financial offer to Mr B and his son exceeds the Ombudsman’s usual range of distress remedy payments. Because of this, it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
28. The Council said it could not launch the review Mr B asked for, because the decision-making which led to his son’s arrest was a Police matter. This does not appear unreasonable, and the Council has already accepted that it failed to intervene before the Police became involved. So it is unlikely further investigation of this matter would lead to a different outcome.
29. We do not usually investigate complaints about data protection, because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is set up to do so. Mr B has a right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to ask the Council to rectify or delete inaccurate records. If he does so, and is unhappy with the Council’s response, he can approach the ICO.
30. Although Mr B remains unhappy with how the stage 2 investigator presented information in his report – and feels the investigator lacked objectivity – the complaint was fully upheld, the Council admitted its failings, and satisfactory remedies have been offered. Because of this, Mr B has no remaining injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have discontinued my investigation. The Council has already accepted fault and offered satisfactory remedies, so there is no remaining injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman