Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide them with appropriate information about two children they adopted in 2019 which they say contributed to the breakdown of the placement. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure or the recommendations made. It agreed to provide us with evidence it has completed them. The Council significantly delayed carrying out the complaints procedure and failed to provide Mr and Mrs X with the stage 3 report which was fault. It agreed to pay them £300 to remedy the injustice that caused.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to provide them with appropriate information about two children they adopted in 2019. Mr and Mrs X say this lack of information contributed to the breakdown of the placement.
2. The Council investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. However, they are unhappy with the outcome.
3. Mr and Mrs X say this matter has caused them distress and the outcome of the complaint may have a negative impact on their ability to adopt going forward.

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. 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I spoke to Mr and Mrs X about her complaint and considered information they provided.
10. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
11. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

12. Section 26(3) of the Children Act (1989) says all functions of the Council under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
13. Complaint investigations under the statutory procedure consist of three stages:
• Stage 1: Staff within the service area complained about try to resolve the complaint.
• Stage 2: An Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO writes a report which includes details of findings, conclusions and outcomes against each point of complaint (ie “upheld” or “not upheld”) and any recommendations to remedy injustice to the complainant.

Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as adjudicating officer. They will consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The adjudicating officer should write to the complainant with their decision on each complaint.

• Stage 3: A review panel considers the complaint. 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)).
3. Unless there is evidence of fault in the investigation process, the Ombudsman will not usually re-investigate a complaint which has been through the full procedure. This is because a properly conducted investigation is independent and robust.

What happened

Background of key events

15. Mr and Mrs X were approved as prospective adopters in 2016.
16. Child F and G became looked after by the Council in 2018 and were placed with foster carers. F and G presented challenging behaviour during their time with the foster carers and struggled at school. The Council said however that over the 14 months F and G lived with the foster carers their behaviour moved in a positive direction and the children settled. The foster carers believed F and G were well prepared for their transition to adoptive care.
17. Mr and Mrs X formally expressed an interest in adopting F and G in early 2019 and this progressed to a matching panel. In June 2019 an adoption panel recommended and agreed that Mr and Mrs X adopted F and G. F and G transitioned to live with Mr and Mrs X in July 2019.
18. Shortly after moving in with Mr and Mrs X, F and G’s placement broke down and ended. Both and F and G displayed some extremely challenging behaviour over the course of a two-day period in July which resulted in Mr and Mrs X calling the police. F in particular displayed some violent behaviour. As a result of the behaviour displayed by F and G, Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council to end the placement and asked it to remove the F and G from their care immediately. Social workers collected and F and G and returned them to the care of the previous foster carers.

The statutory complaint’s process

19. Mr and Mrs X first complained to the Council in October 2020; however, it did not allocate the complaint, so Mr and Mrs X escalated it to stage 2 in December 2020.
20. The Council allocated an investigator (IO) and an independent person (IP). It confirmed Mr and Mrs X’s statement of complaint at the end of March 2021. The IO completed their report in July 2021 and the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X with the stage 2 adjudication letter at the end of August 2021.
21. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy and in October 2021 requested their complaint be escalated to stage 3. The Council did not convene a stage 3 panel within the 30-day timescale and so Mr and Mrs X complained to us. Following our investigation, the Council agreed to convene a stage 3 panel and pay Mr and Mrs X £100 to acknowledge the time and trouble taken complaining to us.
22. The stage 3 panel meeting took place in March 2022 and the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X with the stage 3 adjudication letter in mid-April 2022.

The stage 2 investigation

23. The Council considered 12 complaints from Mr and Mrs X at stage 2 of the process. The IO upheld or partially upheld 8 complaints and did not uphold 4 of the complaints. These decisions are explained in more detail below (the original numbering in the IO’s report has been retained for ease of reference for the parties involved).

Complaints not upheld

24. Complaint one – That Mr and Mrs X did not receive accurate and sufficient information about F and G’s character or behaviour. The IO found there was no evidence that information about F and G was not shared with Mr and Mrs X. The IO said this meant they were aware of the challenges and potential violence from F. The IO found the Council was transparent and had attempted to mitigate this risk.
25. Complaint two – F and G were inadequately prepared for adoption and Mr and Mrs X question whether F and G should have been placed together. The IO found the together/apart assessment concluded F and G should be placed together. They found F and G had lived together with foster carers for 14 months and during this time their behaviour improved and was manageable.
26. Complaint three – Mr and Mrs X did not receive any support or guidance over the two-day period in July on managing violent behaviour. The IO found Mr and Mrs X received telephone support from social workers and were offered advice and support by both the Council and the adoption agency.
27. Complaint four – following the disruption of the placement the Council failed to effectively communicate with Mr and Mrs X or offer any support. The IO found the Council’s involvement with Mr and Mrs X ended when F and G left. They said Mr and Mrs X had their own social worker and engaged with the adoption agency.

Complaints upheld or partially upheld

28. Complaint five – the Council failed to arrange a placement disruption meeting in a timely manner. The IO found the Council delayed arranging the disruption meeting by 22 weeks which was significantly outside the timescales set out in its own policy and adoption guidelines.
29. Complaint six – the Council failed to distribute the minutes from the placement disruption meeting in a timely manner. The IO found the Council did not prepare the minutes or provide Mr and Mrs X with them until over 100 working days after the meeting.
30. Complaint seven – The Council failed to ensure the disruption meeting minutes were distributed in according with data protection legislation. The IO found the Council failed to encrypt the minutes which meant the minutes were not sent to Mr and Mrs X securely.
31. Complaint eight – The Council lost a confidential report written by Mr and Mrs X following the disruption meeting. The IO found a social worker who received the report did not transfer it to the case file.
32. Complaint nine – information provided to the disruption meeting by the Emergency Duty Service (EDS) was inaccurate. The IO found some of the information provide was not evidence based or added no relevance.
33. Complaint ten – the disruption meeting minutes were inaccurate and included statements without evidence or context. The IO partially upheld this complaint. They found some of the factual elements were incorrect and there were assertions, however there was evidence to support them.
34. Complaint eleven – The disruption meeting minutes were critical and defamatory in respect of Mr and Mrs X. The IO found some of the comments from the social worker were unhelpful or untrue.
35. Complaint twelve – The Council did not respond to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in a timely manner. The IO found there was delay in dealing with a responding to Mr and Mrs X’s complaints.

Stage 2 outcomes and recommendations

36. The IO concluded that it was a court decision on whether a child should be adopted. They found significant information was made available to Mr and Mrs X and that they received information from various sources about F’s violent behaviour. They found advice and guidance was made available to Mr and Mrs X over the two-day period in question; however, they chose to ignore it or not access it.
37. The IO made several recommendations in relation their findings and the upheld complaints. These were:
• The Council should apologise in relation to the upheld complaints.
• An accurate representation of what happened over the two-day period should be placed on record.
• That relevant agencies are made aware of the investigation outcome.
38. The Council’s adjudication officer wrote to Mr and Mrs X at the end of August 2021. They agreed with the findings and recommendations made by the IO. They provided an update around how they would ensure the recommendations would be carried out.

Stage 3 panel review

39. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation and asked for it to be reviewed at stage 3, specifically complaints one to four. Part of Mr and Mrs X’s concerns was the IO’s failure to interview the social worker who was involved in arranging and preparing F and G for adoption. Records show the social worker had declined to be interviewed.
40. The stage 3 review panel made the following comments in relation to complaints one to four. The panel
• agreed not to change any of the IO findings. Its view was that the IO had carried out a good investigation and the findings were well evidenced.
• said Mr and Mrs X had not brought any new or concrete evidence which satisfied the panel.
• said an understanding of Mr and Mrs X’s own preparation and experience was missing from the investigation which may have helped shed light and insight for further learning.
• said there was nothing in regulations that said the social worker could not decline an interview.
• agreed that the complaints not upheld related to the nature of the placement, its preparation and breakdown. The panel agreed the evidence for these in IO report was very robust.
41. The panel recommended the matching and adoption process should be given scrutiny. It further said consideration should be given to partnership working and adoption agencies so that expectations in terms of support were clarified. The panel also noted Mr and Mrs X had unrealistic expectations about the level of support they would receive. The panel said this should have been clarified from the outset.
42. Following the stage 3 panel meeting the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X with its final response. The adjudicator agreed with the panel’s findings and recommendations and said it would work to implement and carry out those recommendations.
43. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.

My findings

44. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
45. The stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel review were properly conducted. The IO reviewed and considered relevant information, spoke to Mr and Mrs X and carried out interviews with officers. F and G’s social worker declined an interview however this was considered at stage 3 and there is nothing the Council could do to compel the social worker to be interviewed. The IO explained they considered the same records the social worker would also have considered. Further investigation by me into this would not achieve anything more. If Mr and Mrs X remain unhappy with the individual conduct of the social worker then they can complaint to Social Work England.
46. The stage 3 panel independently considered Mr and Mrs X’s concerns but decided not to make any different findings. The Council has apologised to Mr and Mrs X for the upheld complaints which is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused.
47. As part of this investigation, I have looked at the documents considered by the IO including F and G’s adoption report and the adoption panel minutes. All of these refer to the behavioural difficulties of F and G and document that Mr and Mrs X were aware of the difficulties which may have arisen because of that behaviour. Therefore, further investigation by us would unlikely reach a different conclusion with regards to the elements of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints which were not upheld.
48. The recommendations that were made during the complaint process were appropriate. The Council should provide us with proof it has carried these out.

Delays and procedural fault

49. For various reasons the Council significantly delayed completing the statutory complaints process. It also failed to ensure Mr and Mrs X received a copy of the stage 3 panel report. All of this was fault. It has apologised to Mr and Mrs X but I have made a further recommendation below to address the injustice caused by these faults.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
• pay Mr and Mrs X £300 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays in completing the statutory complaints procedure and for failing to ensure they received the stage 3 panel report.
• provide evidence that it has carried out the recommendations agreed at stages 2 and 3 of the complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I completed my investigation. I have found and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman