Summary: Ms B complains the person appointed by the Council to carry out a review of her grandchildren’s experience in care is not independent. She believes this will lead to a ‘cover-up’. There is no evidence to suggest the person is unsuitable to conduct the review. We will not speculate about the quality of the review until it is complete. That being the case, it is not possible to find Ms B has been caused an injustice and the Ombudsman’s intervention is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains the person appointed by the Council to carry out a review of her grandchildren's experience in care is not independent. She believes this will lead to a 'cover-up' and is a lost opportunity to learn from the Council’s mistakes and improve services.
2. Ms B wants an “independent, external, cross-agency review […] under the auspices of the Hampshire Safeguarding Children Partnership” instead.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms B and information provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B made a complaint to the Council about the care of her grandchildren. The complaint was considered under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services and was substantially upheld.
6. One of the outcomes Ms B wanted from the complaint was an external review of the three years her grandchildren had spent in the Council’s care, not just the period covered by the complaint. The Stage 3 Review Panel agreed and recommended the Council consider such a review in conjunction with the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership.
7. In its final response to the complaint, the Council said it accepted the recommendation for an external review and would implement it. But it did not agree it was appropriate the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership should be involved.
8. Ms B complained to us about this decision. She said she believed she would be marginalised in the review as proposed and the Council’s position demonstrates that it intends to carry out a cover-up.
9. We decided not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there was no evidence the Council’s decision had caused her an injustice. The Council set out why it believes the involvement of the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership is inappropriate. Ms B disagrees and told us what she believes the implications will be for the external review. But until the review is carried out and has made findings, we cannot say, and will not speculate, whether she is right.
10. That being the case, it was not possible to find she has been caused a demonstrable injustice and the Ombudsman’s intervention was not warranted. We said if Ms B is not satisfied with the outcome of the review, she may complain about it.
11. The Council has now appointed someone to carry out the review. Ms B is unhappy with the appointment. Through internet searches she has discovered they worked for the Council for many years, including holding senior management positions in Children’s Services. She does not believe this person can carry out the independent review she wants.
12. Ms B believes the person “shares responsibility” for what happened to her grandchildren and is therefore “unlikely to be able to take a dispassionate view of the myriad of mistakes that have been made.” She says, “it is very doubtful that [the person will be] critical of the people alongside whom they have worked for so many years. It is also highly implausible that they would have the same level of determination to ‘leave no stone unturned’ (the Council’s claim) as a truly independent person.” Ms B says her views are based on “over three years of trying to work constructively with the Council.”
13. In appointing this person to carry out the review, Ms B alleges the Council “has set out to ensure [it] will be furnished with a mandate to continue blighting the lives of children and young people for whom it cares.”
14. Ms B alleges the Council has been “dishonest, deceitful and unethical” in the appointment and believes it demonstrates a lack of interest in learning from the Council’s mistakes.
15. The Council says the person it has appointed has considerable experience of children’s social care, and is also familiar with the Council’s policies and practices.

Consideration

16. The review offered by the Council in response to one of the ‘outcomes’ Ms B requested from her complaint, a request endorsed by the Stage 3 Panel, has no formal status. It is not governed by any laws, regulations or guidance. It is entirely for the Council to decide how it should be conducted.
17. The Council’s willingness to undertake such a review, whatever form it takes, undermines Ms B’s claim the Council is not interested in learning from its mistakes. Having fulfilled its statutory duty to respond to Ms B’s complaint, a council that was not interested in learning from its mistakes could simply have rejected the suggestion. I commend the Council’s willingness to go further.
18. The person the Council appointed to undertake the review may not be external or independent, but that does not make their appointment a ‘fault’ the Ombudsman could criticise.
19. Ms B makes serious allegations about the person appointed to carry out the review without any evidence to support her views. She has had no dealings with the person and knows nothing about them, other than information about their employment history she has found out through internet searches. She judges the person and makes assumptions about the review they have yet to conduct based entirely on her negative views about the Council. This is unfair.
20. There is no evidence to suggest the person is unsuitable to conduct the review.
21. As with Ms B’s last complaint to the Ombudsman, we will not speculate about the quality of the review until it is complete. That being the case, it is not possible to find she has been caused an injustice and the Ombudsman’s intervention is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s appointment, and Ms B has not been caused any injustice. In any event, further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome since it is entirely a matter for the Council to decide who to appoint to carry out the review. We will not, therefore, investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman