Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council considered her complaints about child protection matters through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Ms X said the process was not conducted properly or impartially and did not include evidence she provided. Ms X further complained the Council did not consistently make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities and refused to consider her complaints about the matters. The Council delayed in completing the statutory complaint procedure. It has already taken action to remedy the injustice this caused. There was no fault in the other matters Ms X complained about.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council considered her complaints about child protection matters through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Ms X said the process was not conducted properly or impartially and did not include evidence she provided.
2. Ms X further complained the Council did not consistently make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities and refused to consider her complaints about matters. Ms X said this caused her significant distress and frustration and affected her mental and emotional health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the documents Ms X and her representative provided. We discussed the complaint with them.
7. I read the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
8. I considered our Guidance on Remedies, which is available on our website.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Child protection

10. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
11. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference. The Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.

Child in need

12. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need when they are “unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”. Councils often meet this duty through the provision of extra support to the child and their family.

Children’s statutory complaint process

13. 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.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. The investigating officer completes a report of their investigation. The Council considers the report and writes to the complainant with an adjudication letter. The letter sets out its response, its decision on each complaint and any action that it will take because of the complaint. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
16. 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.
17. The purpose of a review panel is to listen to all parties, consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation, obtain any further information or advice and to reach findings on each of the complaints being reviewed. The Complaints Manager and anyone providing administrative support should also attend the panel. The council can also provide a clerk to assist with administrative functions of the panel.
18. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Council’s leaflet

19. The Council’s leaflet ‘Review Panel Hearing: Complainants Guide’ explains what a review panel is, how and when the complainant can provide their submission to the panel and what will happen at the hearing. It sets out an Appeals Officer arranges and facilitates the stage three panel.

Reasonable adjustments

20. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any organisation which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

What happened

21. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
22. The Council’s children’s services are provided on behalf of the Council by a limited company (Company A). The Council remains responsible for the services Company A provides and in investigating complaints about its actions. I have referred to the actions of Company A as the Council.

Background

23. Ms X has a disability and is often supported by her representative Ms L.
24. In 2020 the Council carried out a child protection investigation assessment due to concerns raised about Ms X’s children. It held an Initial Child Protection Conference and the children were made subject of a Child Protection Plan. The Plan ended in 2021 but the children remained an open case with social services as children in need.

The children’s statutory complaint process

25. Ms X complained to the Council in May 2020 about the child protection assessment and the arrangements for the child protection conference. At that time, the Council's complaint service was suspended due to COVID-19. After the service resumed, the Council responded at stage one of the children’s statutory complaint process. This was in July 2020.
26. Ms X contacted the Council in April 2021. She said she was unhappy with the response and raised a new complaint. The Council appointed an independent investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) to complete a stage two statutory investigation into Ms X’s complaints in July 2021. The Council offered to support Ms X with a referral to an advocacy service which she declined.
27. Ms X and the IO agreed nine complaint headings and several desired outcomes. Ms X signed the statement of complaint as being ‘an accurate account of the meeting held with the IO and IP on 14th June 2021’.
28. The IO considered the available documentary evidence, interviewed key Council Officers and considered the written response of one officer. Ms X sent the IO documents to consider. The IO report upheld one complaint, partially upheld one and did not make a finding on another. It did not uphold the six other complaints. The IP confirmed they participated in all the meetings and had full access to the relevant case files. They said the investigation process had been open, transparent and fair to all parties.
29. The Council wrote to Ms X with its adjudication letter in December 2021. It agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations.
30. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and adjudication. She said she had not been given the opportunity to provide her extensive documentary evidence. A Council officer from the complaints department (Officer R) began to arrange a stage three panel meeting in their role as Appeals Officer. In January 2022 the Council sent Ms X the Review Panel Hearing leaflet. Ms X asked for the meeting to be in the afternoon and reminded the Council Ms L should be copied into all correspondence as reasonable adjustments for her disability. The Council apologised for not copying in Ms L and arranged a panel meeting for an afternoon in April 2022.
31. Ms X sent her evidence to the Council three days before the panel meeting. The Council was unable to open some documents and informed Ms X and Ms L. The Council sent the evidence to all of the panel members and explained the problem. The Council said it would provide an electronic version during the meeting.
32. The Council said the panel meeting began on the arranged date. The panel members were able to access Ms X’s evidence. The Panel decided Ms X’s submission was unclear as she had only provided documents and not explained why she disagreed with the stage two findings. The Chair rescheduled the meeting to May 2022 to allow Ms X extra time to respond to the stage two findings.
33. Ms L submitted a 17-page document setting out Ms X’s disagreements with the stage two investigation and findings. Ms X disagreed with the IO’s findings on all the complaints that were not upheld. She said:
• the IO did not consider or reference the evidence she submitted in their report;
• the Council had not consistently made reasonable adjustments requested by Ms X to allow her to access the procedure; and
• Officer R was unfit to investigate complaints.
34. The Council sent Ms X’s submission and evidence to the panel members two weeks before the meeting. A second panel meeting was held in May 2022. The Council provided Ms X the panel papers in advance. Ms X and Ms L attended the meeting and provided their comments on the stage two investigation. The IO explained they had considered Ms X’s evidence and decided it was not relevant.
35. The Panel recommended one of the complaints was changed from ‘not upheld’ to ‘no finding’ as the investigation had not established enough evidence to make a robust finding. It recommended another was changed from ‘partially upheld’ to ‘not upheld’ and one ‘not upheld’ complaint was changed to ‘partially upheld’. It agreed with the other findings of the investigation.
36. The Panel recommended the Council ‘appoint a suitable officer to liaise with Ms [X] to identify any factual inaccuracies. Only factual inaccuracies can be corrected, and these should be corroborated with evidence which must be provided by Ms [X]’. It also recommended the Council make a time and trouble payment to Ms X in recognition of the delays in the complaint procedure.
37. The Council wrote to Ms X with its final adjudication at the beginning of June 2022. It accepted and agreed to the panel’s findings and recommendations. It set out how it had made improvements to its service. It explained a Council officer (Officer T) had already been in contact with Ms X to discuss the factual inaccuracies. It offered Ms X £200 to recognise the time and trouble she experienced due to delays in the complaint process. It directed Ms X to us if she was dissatisfied.
38. The records show the Council paid Ms X £200 and made attempts to work with her to correct inaccurate records in June and July. At the end of July 2022 Officer T contacted Ms X and asked her to contact the Council when she had considered the records and was ready to proceed.

Ms X’s related complaints to the Council

39. While the Council was arranging the stage three panel meeting Ms X raised a complaint about the competence of Officer R. She repeated her complaints about the matters considered during the stage two investigation. The Council responded and asked Ms X to provide any evidence to support her complaint about Officer R. It allowed Ms X six weeks to respond as a reasonable adjustment. Ms X did not provide any further evidence. The Council considered her complaint about Officer R. It provided a full and comprehensive response to the complaint in June 2022 but did not uphold it.
40. In April 2022 Ms X complained about the Council’s winter grant scheme. The Council investigated but did not uphold the complaint.
41. In May 2022 Ms X complained to the Council that it had not completed an action from the child protection plan. The Council upheld this complaint and apologised to Ms X in June 2022.
42. In June 2022 Ms X raised several complaints to the Council. She said it had sent the stage two investigation report to her old address. The Council upheld the complaint and apologised. She also said it had not prioritised one of her children’s assessment for autism while they were subject to a child protection plan. The Council investigated and did not uphold the complaint.
43. Ms X also raised two complaints about the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. In summary, she said:
• the IO reworded her complaint so much it did not reflect the matters she was complaining about;
• the stage two investigation and stage three Panel ignored the evidence she provided;
• the stage two investigation was not thorough;
• the stage three Panel did not have access to her submission and evidence;
• the statutory procedure was not impartial because Officer R worked in the complaints department but was also the Appeals Officer, and the Council used a company owned by Officer R to investigate her complaint at stage two;
• the Council did not respond to her complaints about this and related matters and closed them without investigation; and
• the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities.
44. The Council responded and directed Ms X to the Council’s final adjudication letter which signposted her to us.
45. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in June 2022. She complained about the same issues as set out in paragraph 43.
46. As part of this investigation I have reviewed each complaint response. In each case the Council directed Ms X either to the next stage of the complaint process, or to us. Ms X’s complaints specifically about the actions of Officer R were considered and responded to by a more senior Council officer.

My findings

47. We are not an appeal body. I cannot question the Council’s decision because Ms X disagrees with it. I can only decide if there was fault in the way the decision was reached.

Statutory complaint procedure

48. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint about the child protection process through the statutory complaint procedure.
49. Ms X said the IO reworded her complaint to such an extent it no longer reflected what she complained about. However, the IO agreed the statement of complaint with Ms X before beginning the stage two investigation. Ms X signed the statement as an accurate reflection of her complaint. The Council was therefore not at fault.
50. The stage two investigation was completed by an independent Investigating Officer and was overseen by an Independent Person. The IO’s investigation considered relevant evidence including key Council documents and interviews with key staff. The IP confirmed they found the investigation had been properly conducted. There is no evidence the IO ignored Ms X’s evidence in coming to their conclusions. The IO confirmed, at the stage three panel, that they considered Ms X’s evidence and decided it was not relevant. It is for the IO to decide what information is relevant or not during their investigation. There is no evidence the IO ignored Ms X’s evidence or that their investigation was insufficiently thorough; the Council was not at fault.
51. The stage three Panel’s purpose is to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation. The Panel considered the representations of Ms X, the documents she provided and discussed the complaint with her, the IO and the Council. Where it found the investigation had not been robust it changed some findings and made further recommendations. The Panel had access to, and appropriately considered, Ms X’s evidence. It was not at fault.
52. Officer R arranged and facilitated the statutory complaints procedure. Their role was not to investigate the complaint. There is no evidence Officer R was involved in, or had any influence on the stage two independent investigation. Officer R acted as the Appeals Officer during the panel meeting which is within their remit to do. There is no evidence that a company owned by Officer R was involved in any way with the statutory complaint procedure. There is no evidence of partiality or conduct that could have influenced the investigation outcome so the Council was not at fault.
53. Based on the four paragraphs above, there was no fault in how the Council arranged and completed the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Therefore, the overall findings of the complaint procedure can be relied upon. I have not investigated them further.
54. During the statutory complaint procedure the Council identified it was at fault for delay in completing the process. That was fault. The Council has already paid Ms X £200 to recognise the time and trouble the delay caused her. This is in line with our guidance and an appropriate remedy.

Related complaints

55. Ms X made a number of related complaints to the Council following the stage two investigation. Ms X stated the Council did not consider those complaints and closed them without investigation. The Council responded appropriately to those complaints and provided Ms X a response. It either investigated, provided a response and signposted Ms X to the next stage of the complaint process, or it said it would not investigate the same matters again and signposted to us. Where Ms X complained about a Council officer, a more senior Council officer investigated and responded. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Reasonable adjustments

56. Ms X asked the Council to communicate in writing, copy in her representative, arrange meetings in the afternoon and allow her extra time to respond. The records show the Council provided those reasonable adjustments during the statutory complaint procedure and in its consideration of her related complaints. Occasionally the Council neglected to copy in Ms L, however it apologised and immediately rectified it. The Council also offered to support Ms X with a referral to an advocacy service. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in the Council’s actions and the Council has already remedied the injustice this caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman