Summary: Ms D complained the Council’s Children Services failed to provide enough support her daughter and properly consider her concerns under the statutory complaint procedure. We found the Council identified the faults it caused, apologised, completed the stage three review panel’s recommendations, and offered Miss X a suitable payment to acknowledge the distress she experienced.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms D, complained on behalf of herself and her daughter (Miss X) about the support they had received from the Council’s Children’s Social Care services. She said:
• it failed to provide Miss X with enough support and consider her views, and it wrongly closed her case in 2020 at a time where she needed its support;
• its assessments of Miss X’s needs were flawed and contained inaccurate information;
• child practitioners allocated to Miss X’s case were inexperienced and acted inappropriately;
• it failed to update its record with Miss X’s and Ms D’s views; and
• it wrongly considered Miss X’s and Ms D’s complaints under the same complaint investigation.
2. Mrs D said as a result she and Miss X had experienced distress and had a loss of support to meet their needs.

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 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Ms D and Miss X’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Ms D and Miss X;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• considered the law and guidance relevant to the complaint.
8. Ms D, Miss 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

The statutory complaint procedure for children’s complaints

9. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to have a formal complaints procedure to deal primarily with complaints by and on behalf of children and young people.
10. The process has a three-stage structure. At stage one, a council responds to a complaint. If a complainant is not satisfied, they can ask for a stage 2 investigation. Stage 2 investigations are carried out by an independent investigator and overseen by an independent person.
11. If complainants are unhappy with the outcome of the Stage 2 investigation, they can request a stage 3 review, conducted by a panel.
12. A council senior manager, acting as Adjudicating Officer, should consider the independent investigator’s (and if appropriate the review panel’s) reports, identify the council’s response with decision on each complaint point and action to be taken.
13. The procedure also sets out timescales for completing the process.
14. Not all complaints about children’s services must go through the statutory complaint’s procedure. Complaints brought by parents concerning their own rights rather than those of their children, can use the Council’s normal corporate complaints procedure. However, once a council has opted to use the statutory complaints procedure, even if it does not have to, it should complete the process.

The purpose of Review Panels

15. Statutory Guidance “Getting the Best from Complaints” sets out how councils should follow the statutory complaints procedure.
16. The guidance explained Review Panels should not generally reinvestigate complaints or consider any substantially new issues not considered at Stage 2. Their purpose is to:
• listen to all parties;
• consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation;
• obtain any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint;
• focus on achieving resolution for the complainant by addressing their defined complaints and outcomes;
• reach findings on each of the complaints they review;
• make recommendations providing practical remedies and solutions;
• support local solutions where possible;
• identify injustice where complaints are upheld and recommend appropriate redress; and
• recommend service improvements.

Our role

17. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaint’s procedure, we generally do not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide an independent, detailed investigation and analysis of each of the concerns raised.
18. This means it is not necessary for us to carry out any further investigation of the complaint issues, unless we find there were serious and fundamental flaws in the way they were investigated and considered under the statutory complaint’s procedure.
19. Our role is usually limited to looking at whether the complaint issues were properly considered, and appropriate remedies recommended and implemented.

What happened

20. In 2019 Ms D told the Council’s Social Services she had concerns about her daughter, Miss X. Her concerns included self-harming, going missing from home and Miss X could become violent towards her. She asked the Council to provide support for Miss X and for its Adolescent Team to assess her support needs.
21. The Council told Ms D its Adolescent Team would assess Miss X and allocated a child practitioner to her case. It asked Ms D for consent to obtain information about Miss X from other services including her GP and the Children and young people’s mental health services (CAMHS), but Ms D did not give consent for it to do so.
22. Over the following months, Miss X had three different child practitioners allocated to her case, who met with her and Ms D. They found it difficult assess Miss X’s needs due to Ms D’s influence and her own needs. However, they found Miss X was not in a crisis at the time. Support was offered for in house Council clinical support, and a work programme. Ms D was offered a referral to Young Carers and an allocated social worker. Miss X had CAMHS support and a pastoral support plan in pace at her college.
23. Ms D was not happy with the Council’s handling of her concerns. Between Summer 2019 and Spring 2020 Ms D made four complaints to the Council. Each complaint related to the lack of proper assessment, lack of provision of ongoing support for Miss X, and raised new issues about the Council’s handling of Ms D’s concerns. There were separate complaints by Ms D and Miss X.
24. The Council provided a stage one response to each of Ms D’s complaints under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. However, due to COVID-19, it had placed stage two investigations on hold from March to September 2020. It therefore did not escalate her complaints to stage two at the time.
25. Due to the backlog of cases the Council had, it did not start its stage two process until Spring 2021, and there were further delays as it and Ms D could not agree to a statement of complaint.
26. Ms D asked the Ombudsman to consider the Council’s delays in the complaints process. In November 2021, we found the Council at fault for the delays caused and told the Council to progress the complaint to stage two without delay with its proposed statement of complaint and finalise the process within 3 months. The Council made a time and trouble payment to Ms D for its delayed complaints process.
27. The Council’s stage two process was slightly delayed as the appointed investigating officer (IO) was unable to conduct the investigation due to health issues. Another IO was allocated, and Ms D agreed to a short extension of the deadline to ensure the IO could meet with Miss X.
28. In March 2022 the IO and IP shared their stage two investigation findings with the Council, and it shared the outcome of the investigation with Ms D and Miss X. The IP agreed with the IO’s view on the majority of the findings but found the Council had been partially at fault on two further points of the complaint.
29. Ms D and Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and how it had investigated their complaints. They asked the Council to escalate their complaint to stage three of the Statutory Complaints Process.

Miss X and Ms D’s complaints

30. The statement of complaint for Miss X’s and Ms D’s complaint was set out in stage two of the Children’s Statutory Complaint Process. The points were:
• it had wrongly directed Ms D to the Ombudsman instead of using the complaint procedure;
• Children Services staff had made inappropriate comments in two phone calls;
• the Child and Family Assessment (CFA) Report of Miss X’s needs in May 2020 contained inaccuracies, failed to include concerns about her self-harm and suicidal ideation, and contained irrelevant information;
• it had failed to place Ms D’s and Miss X’s views on the record, and some of Ms D’s personal views had been misinterpreted;
• its Child Practitioners allocated to Miss X’s case had behaved below the professional standards by failing to provide appropriate support. This included suggesting Miss X had ‘led a male student on’ and asked the male student if she was his girlfriend, and failed to listen and engage with her during a visit and refused to leave;
• a child practitioner had amended Miss X’s apology letter to her college following an incident, but had removed the names of other young people involved;
• it had failed to properly assess Miss X’s needs since she was six years old, and to refer Ms D for support with her emotional and mental health needs.
31. Ms D said she wanted the Council to acknowledge it failed to properly support her and Miss X. She said it should apologise and make payment to Miss X to acknowledge the problems she has had.

The outcome of the Children’s Statutory Complaint process

32. In May 2022, a stage three panel considered their complaints. In attendance were Ms D, Miss X, Council Officer’s, the IO and the IP. The panel found:
• Referral to the Ombudsman – (Not upheld) The Council had acted in line with statutory guidance by advising Miss X she could approach the Ombudsman. However, it made a recommendation for the Council to reword its complaint response letters to make it clear a complainant can approach the Ombudsman at any time but would normally be expected to complete the Council’s internal complaints process first.
• Comments during telephone calls – (Partly upheld) The Council’s officer agreed the conversation happened and the words ‘coached’ may have been used. This was unhelpful, and the Council failed to provide Miss X with an advocate to support her through the complaint’s process. It also found Ms D’s and Miss X’s complaints should not have been amalgamated into one.
• Accuracy of the CFA Report – (Partly upheld) Ms D and Miss X had provided the Council with examples of inaccuracies and disputed information through emails and their complaints. The Council showed poor practice as it should have contacted them for clarification or used the information they provided. It also failed to conduct staff interviews for this complaint point and wrongly reached no finding.
• Failure to include information in the CFA Report – (Not upheld) The CFA Report contained information about Miss X’s previous experiences. However, the information the Council could include was restricted as Ms D had refused consent for it to liaise with other agencies involved with the family.
• Misinterpretation of Ms D’s personal views – (Not upheld) The language Ms D used had not been misinterpreted as these were part of a previous referral to the Children’s Social Care and did therefore not represent a social work commentary of Ms D’s mental health.
• Failure to ensure Miss X and Ms D’s views were recorded – (Partly upheld) Their views were recorded on the case file, but the records could not be amended as the case was closed. However, the Council could not show it had uploaded their annotated copies of the CFA detailing inaccuracies and disputed information to their case records.
• Behaviour of Child Practitioners – (No finding) it did not agree the Council’s stage one response confirmed a child practitioner had made inappropriate comments to Miss X, and it could not make a finding on this part of the complaint as no one else was present in the one-to-one session. Concerns about other Child Practitioners were not considered.
• Changes to College Apology letter – (No finding) The Council’s Child Practitioner had supported Miss X with her apology letter to her college. However, as this took place in a one-to-one meeting it was not possible to support or disprove what happened.
• Failure to assess Miss X’s need – (Partly upheld) It found the Council’s stage two investigation had properly considered previous joint investigations between the police and the Children’s Social Care regarding allegations of sexual abuse. The finding was no further action which was appropriate. It also found it was not possible to carry out a robust assessment of Miss X’s needs as Ms D had refused the Council consent to share information with other services. However, her needs were not properly assessed due to inexperience of the Council’s Adolescent Team.
• Failure to assess Ms D’s needs – (Partly upheld) The Council should have considered a referral for Ms D to its Adult Social Care Services due to how Miss X’s difficulties impacted her.
• Complaints handling – (Upheld) There were delays in the complaints handling, and the Council should not have amalgamated Ms D and Miss X’s complaints at stage two. This contributed to Miss X’s feelings of not being heard or taken seriously by the Council.
33. As a result of the partly upheld findings and observations made during the panel’s consideration of the complaints, it recommended:
• the Council should apologise to Miss X and Ms D, and consider financial redress for loss of opportunity for Miss X to have her complaint dealt with separately from Ms D and not being offered an advocate to help her through the complaint process;
• Ms D and Miss X should be offered to write the Council outlining their concerns regarding the accuracy of the CFA Report and for these to be place on the case records. If Miss X decided to do so, the Council should offer support from an advocate;
• Miss X could make a Subject Access Request in order to see her case records. If she decided to do so the Council should offer her support from an advocate;
• the Council should ensure all young people wishing to make a complaint are offered support from its advocacy service;
• the Council should upload Ms D and Miss X’s annotated CFA Reports to their case records, and remind its child practitioners it is good practice to go through assessments with families to ensure any disputed information is corrected or noted on the record; and
• the Council should reword its complaints response letters to make it clear complainants has the right to approach the Ombudsman at any time, but it is normally expected for the internal process to be completed first.
34. The Council accepted the Review Panel’s findings and recommendations. It apologised to Miss X and Ms D for its handling of their complaints and the instances where its involvement fell short of expected standards. It offered Miss X £100 in recognition of the loss of opportunity to have her own complaint dealt with separately.
35. The Council has since confirmed it has completed the Review Panel’s recommendations. However, Miss X and Ms D had not provided their outline of concerns to be added to their records, nor made a Subject Access Request.
36. Ms D and Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, nor the Review Panel’s handling of their complaints. They said they felt the Panel did not listen and a panel member was rude.
37. As part of my investigation, I spoke with both Ms D and Miss X to hear their views, and to understand what support they believe Miss X should have received from the Council when it closed her case. They said Miss X needed someone to talk with to help her through her problems.

Analysis and findings

38. Ms D and Miss X complained about a lack of support and proper assessment of Miss X’s needs since 2019. Their complaint is therefore late. However, as they complained to the Council in 2019 and the Council’s Children’s Statutory Complaints process was delayed, I found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider their complaint since Summer 2019.
39. However, Ms D’s concerns about how the Council supported Miss X from her childhood to Spring 2019 is late.

Delays in the complaint procedure

40. I have not considered delays in the procedure before November 2021. This is because we have made a decision about this part of the complaint as part of Ms D’s previous complaint to us.
41. There was a slight delay in the stage two investigation in early 2022 as the allocated IO became unavailable due to health reasons. The Council told Ms D and agreed a short extension to allow for its new IO to obtain Miss X’s views.
42. I am therefore satisfied the Council was not at fault for further delays in the complaint’s procedure.

Stage two investigation

43. As I have said above, if a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless we consider the investigation was flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
44. The Stage three review panel and the Council’s final response set out there had been flaws in how the complaints had been investigated. This was because:
• Ms D’s and Miss X’s complaints should have been considered separately;
• Miss X should have been offered an advocate to support her with her complaint; and
• the stage two investigation failed to reach a finding on the accuracy of the CFA report. It should have interviewed staff and used the information it had already received from Ms D.
45. I agree with the Review Panel’s findings which found Miss X had a loss of opportunity to have her views considered separately from Ms D’s complaint. Also, as Miss X’s case was closed, it was not possible to amend the records. It was therefore appropriate to allow Miss X and Ms D to set out their disagreements with the CFA report in writing, and for this to be added to their records.
46. I understand Miss X and Ms D decided not to do so, but their annotated CFA reports has since been added to their records.

Stage three panel review

47. I acknowledge Ms D and Miss X still feels their views have not been properly considered in the complaints process, including the Stage three Panel review. However, the panel review was not recorded, I can therefore only compare what Miss X and Ms D said with the written record of the meeting.
48. I found the review shows Miss X and Ms D were given the opportunity to share their views, concerns, and disagreements. Each point of the complaints was considered, and the Review Panel provided reasons for its decisions.
49. It is clear Ms D and Miss X did not agree with the Panel on some points of the complaints. I have no evidence to show panel members did not listen or were rude during the review. I do therefore not consider there was fault in the way the panel made its decisions.

The proposed recommendations and remedies

50. I have reviewed the review panel’s recommendations and the remedies the Council offered.
51. The Review Panel said the Council should offer an apology for the failings identified in the investigation and a payment to acknowledge the loss of opportunity Miss X had in having her own complaint considered separately from Ms D’s complaint. It also made recommendations to ensure the identified poor practice was addressed and improved.
52. The Council has apologised, and it offered Miss X a remedy of £100. I found this to be an appropriate remedy to the injustice caused. This is because:
• we have already remedied the injustice Miss X and Ms D experienced as a result of the Council’s delayed statutory complaints process in a previous investigation;
• it has offered Miss X and Ms D to place their written views on their records, and for Miss X to have support of an advocate to share her view;
• it has reminded its staff to ensure young people are offered advocacy support to make their complaints, in particular in circumstances where the Council believes the person is influenced by another person;
• it has used the review panels findings as a tool to improve its stage two investigations; and
• it has suggested Miss X and Ms D can make a Subject Access Request to see their full records.
53. In addition, I am conscious Miss X may have had needs for additional support from the Council to be able to talk through or receive counselling for her problems. However, such support normally requires a referral to CAMHS or an NHS therapy service. As Ms D did not agree for the Council to share information with other agencies who worked, or had worked with Miss X, it was not possible for it to do so. As it could not offer Miss X any more support, it followed its process to close her case with its Adolescent Team.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation with a finding of some fault by the Council in how it handled the statutory complaints process. It has already carried out the proposed actions and offered a suitable remedy to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman