Summary: Mr B is unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s statutory children’s complaint investigation. He believes two of his complaints should have been upheld. Mr B said he has been left feeling uneasy about accessing support from the Council. Mr B says the Council did not address all his concerns. We did not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complained about the outcome of the Council’s statutory children’s complaint investigation. He believes the following complaints should have been upheld:
• Complaint two: the Council failed to contact all professionals involved with the children.
• Complaint six: the Council failed to follow safeguarding guidance for fabricated or induced illness.
2. Mr B said he has been left feeling uneasy about accessing support from the Council.

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. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
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 considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
7. Mr B and the Council commented on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

8. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says a child is in need if they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without services provided by the council. Councils can provide services for the whole family or for any individual member of the family if it is provided to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
9. The Children Act 1989 says, “where a local authority…have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.” These are referred to as child protection enquiries.
10. The handling and consideration of complaints under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages:
11. Stage one: Staff at point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint.
12. 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. The IO writes a stage 2 report which includes:
• details of findings, conclusions and outcomes against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and
• recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
13. 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 (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
14. Stage three: The complaint is considered by a review panel. The panel must consist of three independent people. Review panels are designed to:
• listen to all parties;
• consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation;
• obtain any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint to all parties’ satisfaction;
• focus on achieving resolution for the complainant by addressing his clearly defined complaints and desired outcomes;
• reach findings on each of the complaints being reviewed;
• make recommendations that provide practical remedies and creative solutions to complex situations;
• support local solutions where the opportunity for resolution between the complainant and the local authority exists;
• to identify any consequent injustice to the complainant where complaints are upheld, and to recommend appropriate redress; and
• recommend any service improvements for action by the authority (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
15. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a brief summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 19(2) and 20(1)).
16. The council must send its response to the panel’s recommendations to the complainant within 15 days of receiving the panel’s report. (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).

What happened

17. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
18. Mr B complained about the Council’s child protection intervention following a referral made by his child’s school. The referral raised concerns about possible fabricated or induced illness. Mr B felt the Council failed to provide an objective assessment for his child and this led to them becoming subject to a child protection plan. The Council exercised its discretion to consider his complaint using the statutory children’s complaint procedure.
19. The Council considered Mr B’s complaint at stage two of the complaint procedure. Mr B declined to meet with the IO and IP to discuss his complaint and wrote the statement of complaint himself. His statement included :
• Complaint two: The Council failed to contact all professionals involved with the children.
• Complaint six: The Council failed to follow safeguarding guidance for fabricated or induced illness.
20. With regards complaint two, Mr B was unhappy the Council did not contact professionals he commissioned privately.
21. The IO and IP completed their reports in January 2021. The IO upheld one, partially upheld five, and did not uphold eleven complaints.
22. In relation to complaint two, the IO found the Council consulted with and contacted professionals. The report noted the Council spoke to Mr B’s child’s school, doctor and the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) before it decided to escalate the case to child protection. The report recorded the Council sought professionals’ views before the initial child protection conference and included them in its assessment. These included the hospital Mr B’s child attended and the school nurse. When the Council gave evidence to the IO it explained it told Mr B it would not contact the professionals he commissioned privately. However, the report notes the Council considered the information contained in the reports Mr B commissioned and included items of relevance in its assessment. The IO did not uphold his complaint.
23. The IO did not uphold complaint six. They confirmed it was the Council’s duty to investigate the concerns raised by the school, including possible fabricated or induced illness. It explained the Council began its assessment under child in need procedures and escalated it to child protection when it became concerned Mr B’s child could be at risk of significant harm. The Council’s decision was underpinned by a range of concerns including poor school attendance. The IO confirmed the Council could not, and did not, diagnose this as a case of fabricated or induced illness as this would be the role of a medical professional. The IO stated the Council correctly followed its child in need and child protection procedures.
24. The Council sent Mr B its stage two adjudication in March 2021. It accepted the IO’s findings and recommendations.
25. Mr B asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three. He said the IO noted the Council did not contact all professionals, and therefore complaint two should have been upheld. He said the IO report found the Council did not follow fabricated or induced illness safeguarding guidance despite its single assessment raising concerns about the possibility of fabricated or induced illness, and therefore complaint six should be upheld.
26. The Council refused his request for a stage three panel. It said it had completed a reasonable and appropriate consideration of his complaint at stage two. The Council said further consideration by a review panel at stage three would not produce a demonstrably different outcome. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. In August 2021, we issued a final decision finding fault with the Council for failing to consider Mr B’s complaint at stage three of the statutory children complaints procedure. We asked it to do so, and it agreed.
27. The Council held a stage three panel in September 2021. The panel considered written and oral evidence provided by Mr B, the IO, the IP and the head of service.
28. With regards complaint two, the head of service summarised the evidence they would expect a social worker to consider as part of an assessment. They pointed out there was no requirement for all professionals to be contacted. The head of service said in this case the social worker spoke to relevant professionals. The panel decided it was up to the discretion of the assessing professional who they contacted as part of their assessment. The panel did not find the Council at fault for failing to contact all the professionals involved in the case and did not uphold complaint two.
29. The panel combined its discussion of complaint six with complaint one. The head of service explained fabricated or induced illness guidance was considered during its assessment. The IO said the Council needed to consider all the concerns raised by the school and the risk of harm to Mr B’s child. She confirmed in her view the Council followed the correct procedure. The panel confirmed the role of the Council was to consider the referral and investigate if necessary. It said it supported the findings of the IO and did not uphold complaint six.
30. The panel found no maladministration by the Council or injustice to Mr B or his family. It did find a lack of robust case recording in some instances. The panel found the IO’s report to be comprehensive, evidence based and supported by the IP. The panel recommended actions the Council should take.
31. The Council sent Mr B a copy of the stage three panel report and he responded with his comments.
32. The Council sent its adjudication in October 2021. It said it considered Mr B’s comments and the panel’s findings. It confirmed it accepted the panel’s findings and recommendations and apologised for the complaints that were upheld or partially upheld.
33. Mr B told the Council he was unhappy with the view of the panel about complaints two and six. The Council signposted him to the Ombudsman.
34. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided evidence it actioned the stage two and three recommendations.

Analysis

35. When a Council has considered a complaint using the statutory complaints procedure, we generally would not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of the concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless there are serious and fundamental flaws in the way the Council investigated the complaint.
36. The IO, IP and stage three panel undertook a thorough and detailed investigation into complaints two and six. The IO, IP and stage three panel took account of all the relevant information, including Mr B’s representations, and their decisions were based on their professional judgement. I did not find any evidence of fault in how these decisions were reached. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations from the IO at stage two, and those from the stage three panel. I am satisfied the recommendations made during the complaint investigation were appropriate. I did not find fault with the Council’s statutory children’s complaint investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman