Summary: Mr S complains the Council did not suitably consider his concerns about the care his daughter was receiving when in care. Mr S complains the Council did not recognise the impact of the issues he raised. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to consider suitable recommendations during the stage three review. This caused Mr S and Child P significant injustice and meant the Council did not fully address Mr S’s concerns. The Council has agreed a financial remedy and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr S complains the Council has not addressed the concerns raised in his stage 3 complaint.
2. Mr S complains the Council has failed to complete the actions agreed in the stage 3 complaint.
3. Mr S also complains that he has made further complaints to the Council about his concerns following the stage 3 response, however these concerns have not been appropriately responded to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I considered Mr S’s complaint and the information he provided. I also considered information provided by the Council.
8. I considered comments from Mr S and his representative and the Council on a draft of my decision.
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Looked after children

10. Councils are responsible for the safeguarding and wellbeing of all looked after children in their care. There are a number of ways that children become ‘looked after’ by a council. One is when a court grants a care order. This is when the judge decides to place the child in the care of the council for their safety and wellbeing.

Complaints

11. The statutory children’s complaint process was set up to give children and those representing them an opportunity for a thorough independent investigation of their concerns. The statutory process can be used to investigate certain functions of the council as specified by the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006. “Getting the Best from Complaints” (the Guidance) is statutory guidance which explains how councils should carry out complaint investigations. It explains that councils can choose to investigate the actions of bodies acting on its behalf such as children’s homes. It does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the actions of bodies acting independently, even if they are involved in children’s social care.
12. The statutory process has three stages:

• Stage one - local resolution by the council.
• Stage two – an investigation by an investigating officer (IO) who will prepare a detailed report and findings. At the start of the investigation, the Council meets with the complainant to agree a statement of complaint. The investigation is overseen by an independent person (IP) to ensure its impartiality. The council then issues an adjudication letter which sets out its response to the findings. The stage two investigation, including adjudication should be completed in no less than 65 working days after the date the statement of complaint is agreed.
• Stage three – an independent panel to consider their outstanding issues. The panel should consider the findings and include time for the panel members to ask questions.
• The Ombudsman has issued guidance on the children’s statutory complaints process. It says that if a complainant does not agree a statement of complaint at stage two, the council can proceed with the investigation if it is satisfied it understands what the complaint is about.

What happened

13. Mr S has a daughter, Child P, that was placed in care by the Council.
14. Mr S remained having contact with Child P while she was in care.
15. Mr S grew concerned that Child P was not receiving suitable care and support while in care.
16. He became concerned that

• Child P was accessing gaming consoles through the night and not getting enough sleep,
• The Council was not providing suitable access to education for Child P during COVID-19
• That staff working at the care placement had broken GDPR law by allowing Child P to access the internet with staff log in details
• The Mr S had not received visitor logs for Child P
• The Council had delayed assessing Child P’s needs and therefore delayed obtaining a suitable placement for them
• That staff were having inappropriate conversations within earshot of Child P
• The Council did not keep Mr S updated with health concerns for Child P
• Council staff did not have suitable training for conflict resolution
• Mr S had not had suitable access to Child P during COVID-19
• Visits had been recorded that had not taken place

17. Mr S complained to the Council about these issues. The Council investigated it through its statutory complaints procedure.
18. In the Stage three review the Council upheld several parts of Mr S’s complaint. It found

• there remained unresolved issues about Child P’s compulsion to gaming.
• Staff had allowed Child P to access staff computer login details to play games
• Staff had shared details of another child with Mr S
• Staff had made harmful comments about Mr S
• The Council should have told Mr S sooner about a change in his daughter’s health needs.
• Staff needed further training in reducing parental conflict, to avoid staff treating parents differently.
• The Council could have done more to keep Mr S informed of the work that was going on with him and Child P.
• Staff had recorded carrying out visits to Child P which had not been carried out.
• The Council had not suitably handled Mr S’s complaint

19. The Councils’ stage three report made the following recommendations to be completed within twenty working days

• Agency Staff to complete GDPR training.
• GDPR breach reported, visitor logs reviewed and Independent Visitor for the care placement informed.
• Children Social Care Staff are reminded regarding good practice and limitations of working under Section 20. Consideration of service wide training being undertaken in ensuring that men are consulted and assessed in social work assessments and Reducing Parental Conflict.
• Management to ensure that Manager Decision Record is flagged on Child’s Electronic Record.
• named member of staff to agree communication plan with Mr S. This is so all are clear regarding roles and expectations.
• New Independent Reviewing Officer is aware of the history of this case.
• To clarify if there had been further developments in Child P’s health.

20. The Council wrote to Mr S to provide an update on the recommendations. It confirmed that agency staff had completed GDPR training and that the Council had reviewed how it shared information about visitor logs.
21. The Council also told Mr S that it would be providing training to staff about Court Skills and further training about placement types and legal processes. The Council also said that it was developing further training for staff on involving male figures in social worker assessments.
22. The Council said that it had developed a better system for flagging case notes and linking them to reports.
23. The Council also appointed a single point of contact for Mr S and updated the new independent officer of the lessons learned from the complaint.
24. The Council also clarified recent developments in Child P’s health needs.

Analysis

25. Where a Council has completed the complaints 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.
26. For the case of Child P, the Council’s stage three review upheld several parts of Mr S’s complaint.
27. I have reviewed the Council’s stage three review, and I am satisfied the review was carried out properly and considered information provided by the Council and Mr S.
28. I am satisfied that some actions proposed and carried out by the Council were a suitable remedy for the fault found.
29. However, the stage three review fails to remedy some parts of the complaint that it has upheld.

Child P’s compulsion to gaming

30. The Council upheld that Child P was experiencing issues with gaming, which was at damaging to their health and wellbeing. However, no further mention of this was made in the remedies. It is my view the Council should have addressed why this was happening whilst in the Council’s care placement, and what support could have been provided to Child P.
31. During my investigation, the Council said that it had working jointly with the Child and Adolescent Mental Health service to complete ongoing work with Child P about this issue.
32. However, by failing to address the issue as part of the complaints procedure, the Council failed to identify if any action would be suitable and discuss with the panel and Mr S the next steps.
33. By failing to address the outcome of the complaint, the Council has failed to suitably consider what impact this was having on Child P. This was fault by the Council causing Child P significant injustice as it was not clear in the complaints procedure what support she would be accessing and when.

Child P’s health issues

34. The Council also identified that Mr S had not been kept up to date with the health developments for Child P. The Council did not recognise the impact that this had on Mr S, who grew increasingly distressed and concerned about Child P during this time.
35. It is my view the Council should have recognised the impact this had on Mr S and considered service remedies to ensure this does not happen in future.

Visits to Child P

36. The Council recognised there were occasions where a social worker had recorded seeing Child P where visits had not happened. The Council said this was because of a tick box that was generated while writing a report, and the child had been seen by another professional. Child P should have been receiving statutory visits as they were a looked after child. It was recognised that this issue took place during COVID-19 where visits could not be carried out in person, and Child P refused video and telephone visits. On balance, Child P did not receive the support they should have had, but that this was in part due to COVID-19.
37. The Council has recognised the recordings by the social worker were not a suitable record of visits, and that saying another professional saw Child P is not enough to say a statutory visit took place. The Council said it created a system to flag this in future reports, however I have not seen evidence the Council considered what impact this had on Child P.
38. By ticking boxes that say Child P was seen when she wasn’t, the Council has mis recorded visits to Child P. I accept that in part the reason for this was a system that did not account for visits during COVID-19, however I do not think it is reasonable that this was only identified when investigated. If the social worker had concerns that they could not complete visits but were recording incorrectly, it should have been raised and dealt with accordingly. The Council has said the social worker recorded elsewhere the nature of the visits that were taking place, but this does not counter the issue that reports were being generated saying Child P was being seen by a social worker. In turn, this contributed to Child P not receiving the statutory visits they should have been receiving. This was fault by the Council causing Child P injustice.
39. The Council has said that Child P refused online visits. Regardless of Child P refusing online visits, the Council had a statutory duty to visit and provide support to Child P. By failing to carry out the visits but recording that some visits were done, the Council has failed provide Child P with the support she should have been receiving.
40. The Council failed to identify the impact this would have had on them during the stage three review. The Council has also failed to address if this has occurred in any other cases where children are being marked as seen but have not received statutory visits.

Complaint handling

41. Additionally, the Council’s stage three review found that the Council had not suitably handled Mr S’s complaint. The Council said it had reminded staff to pass through complaints and not treat them informally. However it is my view the Council failed to recognise the further distress that it had caused Mr S by failing to suitably consider his complaint, and by failing to maintain reasonable contact with him about the issues he had raised.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within 4 weeks of my final decision the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mr S and Child P and apologise for the fault identified.
• Pay Child P £500 in recognition of the distress caused to them by the failure to provide support.
• Pay Mr S £300 in recognition of the distress caused to him and the time and trouble taken to pursue the complaint.

43. Within 12 weeks of the final decision the Council has agreed to

• Review how stage three reviews make recommendations at the end of the investigation. The Council should review how it will address parts complaints that are upheld and ensure there are actions to ensure these are addressed.
• Share the final decision with the stage three panel.
• Review whether further visits were recorded that did not take place, and audit other cases where the social worker may have populated visits. If the Council finds that other visits were recorded, it should consider whether a referral to the appropriate regulatory body is necessary. The Council should tell the Ombudsman of the result of this audit.
• Review how and when it communicates with parents about health concerns and developments for children, and consider providing further training to staff in this area.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to consider suitable recommendations during its stage three review of Mr S’s complaint. This meant that Mr S’s concerns were not fully addressed, and that Child P and Mr S were caused distress.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. Mr S has also raised further issues and complaints about the Council’s duties and care towards his daughter. I have not considered these parts of his complaint as the issues have not yet exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council understands that it must suitably consider Mr S’s complaints before he can come to the Ombudsman.
46. If Mr S remains unhappy with the Council’s response to the new issues he has raised, he can submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman