Torbay Council (21 011 451)

Category : Children's care services > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Jun 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the support provided by the Council to his family. The Council has already investigated Mr X’s complaints through the statutory children’s complaints procedure and found there was fault in some of the ways it interacted with the family causing them injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints, or in the recommendations it made as a result to prevent a reoccurrence of those faults or the way these recommendations were actioned to remedy injustice.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained on behalf of himself, his wife Mrs X, and their daughter, Ms Z, that the Council wrongly removed Ms Z’s child, C, from her care around 10 years ago.
  2. Following his return to Ms Z’s care, they also complain the Council failed to:
      1. adequately assess C’s needs and provide C and the family with the support they needed;
      2. provide C with extra respite and based its decision on the views of one officer (Officer A) who previously had little involvement with the family;
      3. correctly interview C after an incident, leading to further behavioural issues;
      4. respond in a timely manner when the family phoned for emergency assistance;
      5. support the family’s attempts to involve Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in C’s support;
      6. treat Ms Z in the same way as other mothers, because she has a mild learning difficulty; and
      7. share with the family the single assessment report from 9 February 2021 until the Council had signed it off, thereby preventing them from putting forward their views on inaccuracies they believe it contained.
  3. Mr X also complained about the way the Council investigated their complaint. In particular he said his family is unhappy with:
      1. the outcome of the Stage 3 panel; and
      2. the Council’s response following the panel, including the way the apology was worded and its failure to contact them once the panel ended.
  4. Mr X said as a result of the Council’s actions the family was not appropriately supported by the Council which led to C being taken into care again at the end of 2021. Mr X stated he and Mrs X have also suffered financially because they had to sell their house in order for Ms Z and C to move in with them.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have not looked at the complaint in paragraph 1 because the events took place over ten years ago and I can see no good reason to exercise my discretion and investigate now.
  2. I have investigated the complaints in paragraph 2 from March 2020. This is 12 months before the date Mr X complained to the Council, and it was reasonable to expect him to wait until the Council had completed its complaints process before he came to us. This means the period of my investigation is from March 2020 to April 2021.
  3. I have investigated the complaints in paragraph 3.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  2. 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)
  3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
  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

  1. I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of the complaint.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
  3. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and statutory guidance

Statutory children’s complaints procedures

  1. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
  2. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
  3. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s Stage 1 response, they can ask that it is considered at Stage 2. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete Stage 2 of the process from the date of request.
  4. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the Stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a Stage 3 review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
  5. After the Panel the Council must send its response within 15 days. The response should be developed by the relevant director setting out how the council will respond to the recommendations and what action it will take. If the director does not follow the panel’s recommendations they should explain why in the response. The director should invite comments from all panel attendees including the Independent Person.

Children in Need

  1. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as children in need and entitled to an assessment.

Background

  1. Ms Z and her son, C, who is of secondary school age, live with Ms Z’s parents, Mr and Mrs X. When C was a baby, he was removed from Ms Z’s care for six months. C has been assessed as having behavioural and attachment issues and he has learning difficulties.
  2. Prior to the date this investigation starts, C was assessed by an Educational Psychologist (EP) who made a series of recommendations around how C should be supported at school. C was classed as a child in need and his case came under the Council’s Disability Team. C and the family have had a respite package since 2015 which the Council has increased at intervals in the past.
  3. The Council has assessed C and the family over the years and held Child in Need meetings. C and the family have a social worker assigned to them.

What happened

  1. In February 2021, a senior social worker (SSW) interviewed C in relation to a referral made by C’s school. C had reported to the school that Mr X had smacked him. The SSW spoke to the Deputy Headteacher and C’s teachers. They then spoke to C with his teaching assistant present. The notes record the SSW told C that smacking children was not acceptable but bad behaviour would result in some other form of sanction.
  2. Following these interviews, the SSW contacted Ms Z and Mrs X. The notes record the SSW explained the Council’s policy of non-smacking children and discussed other forms of sanctions if C’s behaviour became challenging.
  3. A strategy meeting was held a few days later which decided the threshold for a safeguarding investigation had not been met. It was agreed the Council would hold a Child in Need meeting to consider additional support for the family.
  4. Also in February 2021, the Panel was asked to approve an increase in respite support which would enable C to spend a weekend away from the family every fortnight. The panel was informed C wanted the increase.
  5. The Panel refused the increase in respite. It said this was because it did not believe this was the best way to meet C’s needs, given he was already receiving 24 days respite away from the family per year. It was felt further respite might lead to C feeling rejected by the family and a support package via the Council’s ‘Edge of Care Team’ was more appropriate. A Council officer (Officer A) attended the Panel meeting.
  6. The family social worker, who did not attend the meeting, challenged the Panel decision but was told it was final. However, she was told the family could return to the Panel if circumstances changed.
  7. In March, Officer A met with the family together with their social worker during a Child in Need meeting. The family asked Officer A to look at C’s previous psychology reports and also talk with C’s school. This is because the family felt Officer A had not had enough information about C when they attended and advised the Panel. Officer A agreed to do so and to attend C’s annual review later that month.
  8. At the annual review meeting, Officer A explained the reasons why they believed additional respite away from the family was not appropriate. They said they wanted instead to work with the family to provide better coping strategies to handle C when he became aggressive and for C to feel safer as a result. Officer A contacted a support group later in March to arrange for someone to work with the family over this. Officer A updated Mrs X about these plans.
  9. In May 2021, Officer A contacted the support group with concerns nothing had yet been arranged. The group said it was currently at capacity. At the beginning of June, the group said it had capacity and Officer A tried unsuccessfully to contact Ms Z to discuss dates.
  10. Around this time, the family made a complaint to the Council under the children’s statutory complaints procedures. These were in line with the ones in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this decision statement.
  11. The Council provided a stage 1 response which the family was unhappy with. Their complaints, therefore, went to a stage 2 investigation. The Council appointed an investigating officer (IO) to carry this out and also appointed an independent person to oversee the process. The findings of the Stage 2 investigation are discussed below.

Stage 2 investigation findings

  1. The Stage 2 IO looked at events from 2015 onwards. My investigation concerns events which took place from March 2020. Therefore, I have only included findings that are relevant to that time period.

Complaints 2a) C’s assessment of needs and the provision of support and 2b) The provision of extra respite and the views of Officer A

  1. For the period covered by this complaint, the IO did not uphold the family’s complaint in relation to the support they had received. However, they partially upheld the family’s complaint that the Council had wrongly refused their request for extra respite. This was because the Council failed to fully explain to the family the reasons why this had been refused.
  2. The IO did not find fault with the way the Council decided not to offer extra respite away from home. This is because the Council considered the family’s reasons for wanting the increase and what outcomes they expected together with the views of Officer A. Officer A stated at the Panel meeting on 23 February 2021 additional respite would not meet C’s needs and a package of support from the ‘Edge of Care’ Team was more appropriate. When the family’s social worker challenged the Panel decision, the Council provided cogent reasons for its decision. Officer A later complied with the family’s request that they speak to C’s school and consider the EP’s reports and attended C’s annual review. At the annual review meeting, Officer A explained why they wished to provide a different type of support to respite away from home.

Complaint 2c) The interview with C after an incident in February 2021

  1. The IO’s found the evidence showed the SSW took appropriate steps to ensure they had sufficient background knowledge of C before interviewing him. The IO spoke to the SSW who said they discussed with C that smacking was not the right sanction to impose following bad behaviour but made it clear other, appropriate, sanctions would be imposed instead. The IO concluded that evidence showed that issues with C’s behaviour had been a common theme for many years.
  2. The IO did not uphold this complaint.

Complaint 2d) Emergency assistance support

  1. Mr and Mrs X said that on a particular date they tried with no luck to call their social worker three times and then the on-call social worker five times.
  2. The IO spoke to three members of the relevant service areas about what had happened. Staff were unable to explain why Mr and Mrs X had been unable to get through to the service areas and apologised for this.
  3. The IO upheld this part of the complaint.

Complaint 2e) CAMHS involvement

  1. The IO contacted CAMHS about C’s case. Records showed the Council had contacted CAMHS in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and on each occasion CAMHS had not agreed to become involved.
  2. The IO did not uphold the complaint on the basis that evidence demonstrated the Council provided information to CAMHS when required and supported any referrals.

Complaint 2f) The Council’s treatment of Ms Z

  1. The IO’s investigation looked at the support the Council’s Adult Social Care Team had provided Ms Z, who has learning difficulties. Ms Z had received a care package for many years. This had been increased in 2021 and continued to be provided. In addition, Ms Z and the family had also received support from Children’s Services in relation to C.
  2. The IO did not uphold this complaint.

Complaint 2g) The single assessment report from 9 February 2021

  1. Mr and Mrs X made a number of detailed complaints about the content of the single assessment report as well as stating they did not receive it until around four months after the meeting was held.
  2. The IO spoke to the relevant Head of Service who agreed the report had been issued late and was also in agreement with some of the inaccuracies in the report.
  3. The IO, therefore, upheld this complaint.

Stage 3 review and adjudication

  1. Mr and Mrs were unhappy with the stage 2 investigation and asked for a stage 3 review.
  2. The Panel agreed with the Stage 2 findings apart from complaint 2c) relating to extra respite. Here, the Stage 2 IO had partially upheld the complaint but the Panel fully upheld it. The Panel also made recommendations to help prevent a reoccurrence of the same faults.
  3. Following the Stage 3 review, the Council adjudicating officer responded. They disagreed with the Stage 3 decision to fully uphold complaint 2c) and made the following points in doing so:
    • the Panel had made its decision without fault but officers had not explained to the family the reasons why extra respite of the type the family wanted had not been approved; and
    • Officer A was not instrumental in denying that request because another, more senior officer, was Chair of the Panel who had discussed the request with other Panel members before a decision was reached.
  4. The adjudicating officer, therefore, partially upheld the complaint in line with the Stage 2 investigation.
  5. The adjudicating officer also outlined how the Council had met the Stage 3 recommendations.
  6. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

  1. The Stage 2 IO carried out a thorough and detailed investigation which was overseen by the independent person. They spoke to Mr and Mrs X and Ms Z as well as Council officers involved in the events complained about. They also considered relevant documentation, including notes from Child in Need visits, Panel meetings, assessments and supervision and oversight reports from November 2015 – March 2021.
  2. The IO addressed each of Mr X’s complaints and provided a decision on whether to uphold the complaint. Each decision was supported by the evidence available.
  3. The Stage 3 review considered the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation, spoke to Mr and Mrs X and officers and reached findings on each complaint. It also made recommendations. Again, these decisions were supported by the evidence available.
  4. The Council director agreed with all but one of the Stage 3 findings. For that complaint, the director agreed with the Stage 2 investigation. This was something they were entitled to do and they explained their reasons why.
  5. Where the Council accepted it had acted with fault, it apologised to Mr X and the family. This is appropriate to remedy the injustice it identified. The Council also made recommendations to help prevent a reoccurrence of the fault. It has explained to us how it had met these.
  6. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council has already admitted it was at fault. It has apologised and made recommendations for service improvements. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings