Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council’s failure to provide adequate support when she was a looked after child. She also says the Council did not do enough to help her secure indefinite leave to remain in the UK. We find the Council has already undertaken a thorough and independent investigation of Ms Y’s complaint and has provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault. We do not make any further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains the investigation of her complaint about the Council’s failure to support her as a previously looked after child was insufficient because it did not fully consider all the fault claimed by Ms Y. Consequently, Ms Y says the remedy proposed by the Council does not go far enough in remedying the significant injustice she experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. During my investigation I considered information from Ms Y’s representative and gave them the opportunity to discuss the complaint with me. I also considered the complaint correspondence, including the independent stage two report.
5. Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
6. 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

What I found

What should happen

Statutory complaint investigation

7. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
8. The guidance says councils do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to make the representation arose. However, such decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis and there is a presumption in favour of accepting the complaint unless there is good reason against it.
9. The time limit can be extended at the council’s discretion if it is still possible to consider the complaint effectively and efficiently. In addition, councils may wish to consider complaints if it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have made the complaint earlier. For example, in cases where a child or young person was not able or confident enough to make the complaint in the time limit.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At the second stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator (IO) and an independent person (IP) to oversee the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of the complainant’s request.
11. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three 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.
12. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate the substantive matter unless we consider the investigation was flawed. But we may consider if a council properly considered the investigation findings and recommendations.

Brief background of key events

13. Ms Y moved to the UK from Ghana with her parents and siblings in 2003. For reasons unknown, the citizenship for Ms Y and her mother was not confirmed at the time. However, Ms Y’s father and her siblings received leave to remain in the UK. Ms Y’s mother was deported to Ghana and Ms Y remained in the UK with her father and siblings. During this time Ms Y says she experienced abuse from her father.
14. In 2012 Ms Y, who had a young child, told her partner at the time about the abuse she suffered. With support Ms Y was able to approach the police and consequently her father was arrested, and Ms Y was offered a place in a mother and baby unit. Ms Y says this was a difficult time for her because it became apparent that she was not welcome at the placement.
15. Ms Y withdrew her police statement, left the placement, and returned to her family home where she says the abuse resumed.
16. With the support of a friend, Ms Y returned to the police station in 2013 to make a further disclosure of abuse. The Council received a police referral and arranged for Ms Y to be accommodated in an emergency foster placement. During this time, Ms Y says the Council intervened to obtain a care order for her child, without success.
17. Ms Y tried to enrol onto a college course, but this did not proceed because Ms Y did not have leave to remain in the UK and had no recourse to public funds (NRPF). She tried to seek legal representation but could not afford to do so.
18. Ms Y made a formal complaint about her experiences which the Council investigated under all stages of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. I will deal with each complaint, in turn, in the section below.

Statutory complaint investigation and findings

Complaint 1: failure to provide adequate assistance and support in respect of Ms Y’s immigration status

19. In response to the complaint made at stage one of the statutory procedure, the Council said there was evidence to show Ms Y received support with her immigration status and, with the Council’s help, received recourse to public funds in 2019.
20. The stage two investigation found that Ms Y did not receive indefinite leave to remain following the family’s application to permanently reside in the UK. As a result, Ms Y did not have citizenship and was unable to access public funds. However, in January 2013 and ten months before Ms Y’s 18th birthday, she applied for leave to remain in the UK. The Home Office granted leave for 30 months in August 2013. The Council funded some legal representation for Ms Y and her entitlement to remain was extended in 2016 until 2019. Changes in legislation meant that Ms Y would have to build up ten years of continuous residence in the UK before she is eligible for indefinite leave to remain.
21. The IO also noted that Ms Y had access to public funding from 2019 when she asked the Council for support. The IO decided not to uphold the complaint because they considered the Council had done enough to support Ms Y.
22. The stage three panel took a different view. They acknowledged the law in this area is complex and often subject to change, and so it is not possible to ascertain exactly what the Council should have done ten years ago when Ms Y first became known to the Council. However, the panel decided the Council should have done more to assist Ms Y in making an application seeking indefinite leave to remain. This is because the Council had an overarching responsibility to Ms Y as a care leaver, and it was both possible and beneficial for the Council to have supported her efforts to legally remain in the UK. The panel changed the complaint finding to partially upheld.
23. The panel recommended the Council offers assurances that it is continuously seeking to improve and apologise for those times when historically the Council could have provided a better level of support.

Complaint 2: failure to provide subsistence and clothing allowance to Ms Y and her eldest child

24. Ms Y complained that she only received a weekly subsistence allowance of £50 and that she received no additional allowance for her young child. The Council did not uphold this complaint at the first stage of the investigation process. It said Ms Y would have received payments in line with the universal benefit allowance at the time, and that once she gained employment Ms Y would need to contribute to her rent costs.
25. The stage two investigation found the Council had provided an allowance of £50 per week for Ms Y’s eldest child. It also found evidence that when Ms Y became a parent at aged 16, her mother was claiming child benefit for both Ms Y and her young child. The records also show Ms Y was advised to approach her child’s allocated social worker for funds to help meet their needs. The IO therefore decided not to uphold this complaint.
26. However, at stage three the panel said although a clothing allowance would not have been available for the children, Ms Y may have been eligible to claim an allowance for herself during the time she was in foster care. The panel said this had not been considered during the stage two investigation and the finding should change from not upheld to partially upheld. The panel said the Council should review all payments made to Ms Y to establish whether there was a shortfall.

Complaint 3: failure to provide a maternity grant

27. The stage two investigation found that Ms Y was in receipt of all the financial support she was entitled to during the time she had access to public funds. The IO also noted that maternity grants are provided to eligible people by the state, not the Council.
28. Both the stage two investigation and the stage three panel agreed not to uphold this complaint. Although the Council could have done more to support Ms Y in seeking support from other agencies, they said there was no maternity grant which the Council could have provided.

Complaint 4: failure to provide adequate assistance and support with suitable housing

29. The Council’s stage one response noted that Ms Y received priority two banding for the housing register in December 2015. However, there were some difficulties in securing accommodation due to the high demand for two-bedroomed properties and because of Ms Y’s immigration status. Once the Home Office made its decision, the Council said it re-presented Ms Y’s case back to panel and she received a direct offer in January 2017 for a house outside of the borough.
30. The stage two investigation found the Council ended its involvement with Ms Y when she reached the age of 21 because she was not engaged in education or training. This was in line with the legislation at the time. The requirements later changed in February 2018 and all care leavers are now supported until they reach the age of 25. The IO found evidence that officers in social care had made representations to the housing panel about Ms Y’s case and the Council had supported her in applying for backdated Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP). When Ms Y did receive housing, the IO said there were safeguards in place to ensure the property was suitable and that housing services were in regular contact with Ms Y’s social worker and health visitor.
31. Both the stage two investigator and the stage three panel decided not to uphold this complaint. The statutory complaint investigation is focused only on the involvement of social services, rather than housing. With that said, the panel made a general observation that housing and social care should work collaboratively to promote corporate parenting and acknowledged the Council now operates a joint ‘move on’ panel for young people leaving care.

Complaint 5: failure to consider the impact on Ms Y’s children having to change address and schools

32. Both the stage two investigator and the stage three panel decided not to uphold this complaint. They said the issues with schooling link back to problems Ms Y had with accommodation. The evidence showed that officers in social care made the appropriate referral for housing and that they cannot be held accountable for housing allocations.

Complaint 6: failure to consider the needs of Ms Y and her eldest child when accommodated in a brothel

33. The IO said there were no available records for the address provided by Ms Y and that Ms Y did not provide any further details, such as dates of residency. When interviewed, an officer made a general comment that the Council would not accommodate a young person in a brothel.
34. The stage three panel expressed concern about the lack of information in the stage two report about this. But the panel decided there was not enough information to make a finding on this complaint.

Complaint 7: failure to support Ms Y as a young mother due to attempts to remove her eldest child from her care

35. During the stage two investigation the IO found that Ms Y’s eldest child had, at times, been subject to Child in Need and Child Protection plans but that the child was not looked after by the local authority. The investigation found that case records relating to the Council’s intervention with Ms Y’s child were not available.
36. The stage three panel also noted that court proceedings had been undertaken and therefore it was not an appropriate subject for investigation. Any challenges in respect of that judgement would need to be through appropriate legal proceedings. The panel made no finding on this complaint.

Complaint 8: failure to provide adequate support and safeguarding in respect of the abuse Ms Y experienced from her father

37. When reviewing the complaint at stage one of the process, the Council noted the passage of time since the matters complained about and confirmed its findings were based solely on the available records. These showed the Council offered mother and baby accommodation in 2012 following Ms Y’s first disclosure of abuse, which she later withdrew. The Council then undertook section 47 safeguarding enquiries in June 2013 once it received notification from the police about Ms Y’s second disclosure of abuse. The Council placed Ms Y into foster accommodation during the safeguarding investigation, which she remained in until March 2014.
38. The records also showed the Council offered support including psychotherapeutic intervention; the notes on this were limited but the IO said the evidence showed that Ms Y chose not to accept or engage with services offered. The IO decided not to uphold this complaint.
39. The stage three panel took a different view. They decided this complaint comprised of two parts: firstly, whether the Council followed the correct safeguarding procedures and secondly whether it provided appropriate support to Ms Y. In respect of the first part, the panel said this could not be upheld because the available evidence shows safeguarding procedures were followed. For the second part the panel decided there was a lack of evidence to show the Council proactively supported Ms Y about her disclosures and any counselling needs she might have had. Therefore, the complaint was changed by the panel to partially upheld.

Complaint investigation outcomes

40. Following the stage three panel, the Council agreed to:
• Formally apologise for the fault identified. The Council has already given an apology for the delay in investigating her complaint.
• Arrange for Ms Y to receive a consultation with a specialist practitioner to help address her issues, assist her future wellbeing and to help decide whether to take further action regarding the alleged abuser.
• Discuss future policies and protocols around joint corporate parenting action and planning for young people in care and those leaving care.
• Review all subsistence payments mase to Ms Y to determine if there were any underpayments.
• Pay Ms Y the equivalent clothing allowance payment.
• Consider whether Ms Y was eligible for a bursary as part of her leaving care entitlement and whether any payments are due.
41. In the final adjudication stage of the complaint investigation, the Council provided its apologies and offered to signpost Ms Y to the appropriate services for her to gain support as a survivor of abuse. The Council also explained that it now operates a ‘move on’ panel for those leaving care and requiring accommodation.
42. However, the Council said it had not been possible to undertake a review of the payments made, and whether any shortfall is due, because of the age of the complaint and the nature of the records. The Council agreed to pay £2,500 to Ms Y which it considered was an appropriate payment to reimburse any possible shortfalls in grants and bursaries.

My findings

43. Ms Y approached the LGSCO seeking the following outcomes:
1. For a full investigation of all the matters complained about
2. To receive an apology from the Council for the harm it caused her
3. To receive financial redress in recognition of the harm she experienced as well as reimbursement for the money owed to her.
44. In my view, and based on the information seen, I do not consider that Ms Y’s complaint requires any further investigation, and we will not therefore achieve outcome a). This is because the LGSCO does not normally reinvestigate matters which have been subject to a thorough and robust independent investigation under the statutory procedure.
45. I appreciate Ms Y considers the investigation did not go far enough with its findings. I am mindful the matters complained about date back almost ten years and so the lack of availability of some of the records has hindered the Council’s ability to fully investigate all eight heads of complaint. The investigation was further hampered by the departure of many staff originally involved in Ms Y’s case and the IO’s ability to interview only a small sample of officers. This is unfortunate, but it is not fault. The statutory guidance makes clear that councils may not always be able to investigate historic complaints effectively and efficiently. In these circumstances, I do not consider the independent investigation was flawed and, in my view, there is nothing further for the LGSCO to achieve.
46. In terms of outcome b), I consider Ms Y has already received a full apology from the Council for the fault found during the complaint investigation. The Council has also apologised for delays in the complaint investigation. There is no merit in the LGSCO recommending a further apology.
47. I turn now to the most significant and contested part of the remedy which is Ms Y’s request for financial redress for the impact of the harm she experienced as a young person. The LGSCO can only recommend a remedy for injustice which arises from Council fault. Although Ms Y did experience harm when she was a young person, we cannot attribute all of this to the Council. The availability of the Council’s records is limited due to the passage of time; however, we are satisfied the files show the Council provided Ms Y and her child with a place of safety and undertook a safeguarding investigation when it became aware of the abuse alleged by Ms Y in 2013. This is the appropriate course of action.
48. I note that Ms Y has regularly referred to ‘compensation’ which she considers she is entitled to as a victim of abuse, however the LGSCO is not the correct body to adjudicate on harm caused by criminal matters. Compensation payments can only be awarded by the courts.
49. In my view, the injustice which flows from the Council’s fault is the financial loss caused by its failure to make the appropriate payments to Ms Y at the time of the matters complained about. The Council has explained why it cannot now undertake a review to provide an exact calculation of any monies owed and has instead proposed a payment of £2500 in recognition of the impact. In the absence of any conflicting evidence from Ms Y, and the likelihood that an LGSCO investigation would not be able to quantify any actual losses, I consider this is an appropriate payment and the LGSCO does not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation. The Council has already upheld some parts of Ms Y’s complaint and has proposed an appropriate remedy. The LGSCO does not recommend any further action as we consider the injustice has already been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman