Summary: Miss X complained about the remedy offered by the Council after it upheld some of her complaints about the way its children’s services team imposed a child protection plan. The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Miss X’s circumstances when it offered a remedy payment for distress. The Council agreed to offer an improved remedy payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained there were many faults in the way the Council’s children’s services team imposed a child protection plan. She said an assigned social worker was dishonest and mismanaged the process. She also said there were delays in the Council’s complaint handling.
2. Miss X is unhappy with the remedy the Council offered after upholding some of her complaints. She said the Council should offer a remedy for each complaint it upheld.
3. Miss X said she and her family suffered distress over two years and lost time together. She also incurred significant time bringing her complaint.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the remedy the Council offered. I have not re-investigated Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s children’s services team.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
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 the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response and relevant guidance.
9. 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

What happened

10. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
11. Miss X’s complaint stems from the Council’s decision to start a child protection investigation and place Miss X’s children on child protection plans. Miss X was unhappy with the way the Council managed the process.
12. Miss X raised 39 points of complaint in two letters to the Council.
13. The Council said the courts had already dealt with some points. It considered Miss X’s complaints at stage one and two of its complaint process and accepted the following faults:
• Delay in a family support working starting work with the family.
• Not telling Miss X about its plan to make a court application about her children.
• It did not provide Miss X with minutes of a meeting until her advocate asked for them.
• Notes from a meeting were muddled and confusing.
• It changed its mind about Miss X’s mother communicating with Miss X’s ex-partner.
• It did not meet the statutory timescales of seeing the children every 10 days when a social worker was off work shielding.
• A social worker wrongly told Miss X the Council planned to place her unborn child in foster care. The Council apologised for the distress and shock caused. It said the Council’s plan was in fact to add the unborn child, once born, to the care proceedings.
14. The Council also partially upheld complaints that it did not advise Miss X she could have an advocate, and about a lack of communication from a social worker.
15. The Council apologised for the distress Miss X suffered, and recognised this was a difficult experience for her. It highlighted poor communication as a particular issue, and it offered Miss X £300 for her time and trouble complaining.
16. Miss X asked to move to stage three of the complaint process to consider compensation. Miss X asked for £14,000 for the hurt, distress, and trauma sustained, as well as lost time with her children. She said this resulted from poor social work practice. Miss X asked for £1,000 for each upheld or partially upheld element of her complaint, plus an extra £1,000 for herself, each of her children, and her parents.
17. The stage three panel recommended the Council also consider a payment for distress.
18. the Council acknowledged the recommendations of the review panel, and agreed it had not separated Miss X’s time and trouble from her distress in its earlier response. In addition to the £300 for time and trouble, the Council also offered £300 for distress.

Analysis

19. We aim to remedy personal injustice which directly arises from fault by the Council. We try to return people to the position they would have been in if the Council’s fault had not occurred. Where this is not possible, we will consider recommending a financial payment.
20. This might be to repay a quantifiable loss, or it might be a symbolic payment to recognise the distress or difficulty a complainant suffered. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive, and we do not award compensation in the way a court might.
21. When the Ombudsman considers recommending a remedy for distress, we look at the impact of the identified fault. Not all faults cause significant injustice to complainants and not all injustice needs a remedy payment. Sometimes an apology will be enough.
22. A remedy for distress needs to reflect all the circumstances, including: its severity, the time involved, the number of people affected, and the vulnerability of the person(s) affected.
23. Distress can include uncertainty, raised expectations, lost opportunity, outrage, undue significant distress, inconvenience and frustration. It must be avoidable distress arising from fault by the Council.
24. In this case, the Council told us it followed our guidance when it offered Miss X £300 for distress. I have not seen evidence the Council considered Miss X’s personal circumstances, her vulnerability, or the severity of the distress. During the child protection process, Miss X was pregnant. An officer wrongly told Miss X the Council planned to take her unborn child away from her. That caused Miss X significant avoidable distress. I have not seen evidence the Council properly considered this. I found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider the remedy for distress.
25. Miss X asked the Council to make a large compensation payment for its poor social work practice. However, I found some of Miss X’s complaints about poor social work practice were either not upheld or were inconclusive. The main elements of the complaint the Council upheld related to delays and poor communication.
26. Child protection investigations are always stressful for the family. But there is nothing to suggest the Council’s intervention was wrong in this case, or that there was any fault in the decisions it made, or the processes followed.
27. When the Council wrongly told Miss X it planned to take away her unborn child, that caused significant distress. Miss X was in a vulnerable position, and I consider the Council should pay Miss X £500 in recognition of this.
28. I found the remaining faults the Council accepted were more minor in nature and I have not seen evidence the faults impacted either the Council’s decision-making or the child protection measures it took. However, they still caused avoidable distress and frustration to Miss X. I also found there was a cumulative impact of these faults, which affected Miss X for several months through the child protection process. I consider the Council should pay Miss X £300 in recognition of this.
29. All complaints involve an element of time and trouble. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance recommends a payment of between £100 and £300 where a complainant incurs time and trouble above what is considered usual in bringing their complaint. This can depend on the difficulty the complainant faced, and any factors which make the complaint vulnerable.
30. I have not seen evidence on which I could recommend a higher payment. Miss X’s circumstances do mean she is vulnerable, and there were delays, but she was able to complain, and the Council fully considered her complaint at each stage of the complaint process.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for failing to properly consider her individual circumstances when it offered her a remedy for the distress its faults caused.
• Pay Miss X £800 to recognise the avoidable distress its faults caused.
• Pay Miss X £300 to recognise the time and trouble she incurred.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Miss X’s circumstances when it offered a remedy payment for distress. The Council agreed to offer an improved remedy payment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman