Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s statutory complaints investigation in relation to her child. The Council was at fault as it delayed writing to Mrs X and explaining its reasons which led to a safeguarding investigation which caused Mrs X frustration. The Council recognised it was at fault and apologised to Mrs X. This was appropriate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s statutory complaints investigation in relation to her child, Y, who is a child in need. She said:
• despite the outcome of the investigation, the Council did not allocate Y with a social worker; and
• the Council’s financial remedy for how it poorly processed a safeguarding investigation was not sufficient for the injustice it caused to her.
2. Mrs X said the Council has caused her and the family significant distress. She wants the Council to provide Y with a social worker and to reconsider the remedy it offered.

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. 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

5. I spoke with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered information the Council provided.
7. I considered our “Guidance on Remedies”.
8. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services.
10. Stage one is a local resolution. The second stage is an independent investigation and the third stage is a review by an independent panel. A council should consider any recommendations made following each stage. A council does not have to agree with the recommendations, but if it does not do so, it should set out its reasons why clearly to the complainant.
11. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel and any remedy the council offers.

A council’s duty to make enquiries

12. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 states, 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.

Disabled child

13. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them.

Background

14. Mrs X has two children. Mrs X’s child, Y, has complex and significant learning and behaviour needs. Y has a support plan in place with input from health and social care. As part of this, Y attends a specialist boarding school every week between Monday and Friday and is at home during weekends and holidays. Over the weekends, a Care Provider delivers an allocated number of hours of care and support to Y.
15. From 2018, the Council’s Disabled Children’s Service and a social worker supported Y and their family and monitored Y’s support plan.

What happened

16. In January 2021, the Council completed a review of Y’s support plan. During the review meeting, the Council considered the current plan was working well and there were no concerns with the services in place. The Council decided to transfer Y’s plan to its Children and Family Wellbeing Service. Instead of a social worker for Y and the family, the Council allocated a case worker from the Children and Family Wellbeing Service.
17. In February 2021, Mrs X spoke with the Council about its decision to transfer Y’s plan to the Children and Family Wellbeing Service. The Council said it had serious concerns with Mrs X’s mental health when it had spoken with her. As a result, in March 2021, the Council decided to conduct a safeguarding investigation to establish whether Y and her other child were at significant risk of harm.

Mrs X’s complaint with the Council

18. Towards the end of March 2021, Mrs X complained to the Council. As part of her complaint, Mrs X said:
• the Council’s decision to transfer Y’s plan to the Children and Family Wellbeing Service was poor. There was no proper discussion with Mrs X before the decision;
• the Children and Family Wellbeing Service was not suitable to support Y and their complex needs. It had failed to attend review meetings at the residential school. Y would not be properly safeguarded under the Council’s Children and Family Wellbeing Service and without a social worker;
• the Council had not considered Y’s challenging behaviour and impact on their family when at home during the weekend and holidays; and
• the Council’s decision to conduct a safeguarding investigation was poor as its concerns were based on false information. Mrs X said the Council had no reason to be seriously concerned about her mental health following its conversation with her.
19. As part of her outcome of the complaint, Mrs X wanted the Council to:
• keep Y under its Disabled Children’s Service with an allocated social worker; and
• allow her to add her views to the Council’s safeguarding investigation records.
20. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure between April 2022 and November 2022. At Mrs X’s request, the Council investigated her complaint at stage one, two and three of the complaints procedure.
21. In November 2022, the Review Panel at stage three of the investigation found:
• the Council’s Children and Family Wellbeing Service had minimal involvement with Y and their family and the failure to provide appropriate support could negatively affect Y. It said there was sufficient justification for continued social work support such as Y’s challenging behaviour. The Panel recommended upholding this element of Mrs X’s complaint; and
• there was evidence which supported the Council’s concerns about Mrs X’s mental health when it spoke to her in February 2021. The Panel did not uphold this element of Mrs X’s complaint. However, the Panel noted the Council’s actions following its conversation with Mrs X had been poor. Although the Council had serious concerns about Mrs X’s mental health, it did not check in with Mrs X after its conversation with her, it did not contact other agencies who knew of Mrs X, it delayed its safeguarding investigation and it did not inform Mrs X of its concerns until she was present at the safeguarding meeting.
22. The Review Panel made several recommendations which included that the Council should:
• within four weeks of the Panel’s letter, offer Mrs X a re-assessment completed by a social worker, which should include the family’s needs for support when Y is at home;
• offer Mrs X and her family a carer needs assessment;
• offer to meet Mrs X to discuss its concerns which led to a safeguarding investigation and what errors it made in the process; and
• offer Mrs X a financial remedy to recognise the faults identified.
23. Following the Review Panel at stage three of the investigation, the Council’s Adjudicating Officer wrote to Mrs X in December 2022 and said:
• it acknowledged the Panel upheld Mrs X’s complaint in relation to her request for a social worker however, the Council did not agree with the recommended outcome. The Council said since Y’s case was transferred to the Council’s Children and Family Wellbeing Service, there were no concerns with the support it offered and no referrals made for additional support. It continued and said there was no statutory requirement under the Children Act 1989 for Y to have a social worker; and
• it agreed with the Panel’s finding in relation to the safeguarding investigation and the evidence it relied upon. However, the Council recognised the way it processed the safeguarding investigation was fault and apologised to Mrs X for this.
24. The Council referred to the recommendations the Panel made and:
• agreed to offer Mrs X a re-assessment with a social worker from the Council’s Disabled Children’s Service;
• agreed to offer Mrs X and the family a carer’s assessment;
• said within four weeks of its letter, it would review its actions and decision making that led to the safeguarding investigation and would then offer to meet Mrs X or write to her to explain its findings; and
• offered Mrs X a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge its faults in relation to the safeguarding investigation and the distress and uncertainty it caused to Mrs X.
25. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.
26. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council to provide me with evidence it had complied with the above recommendations. The Council:
• provided a copy of the child and family assessment which the Council commenced in December 2022. The assessment was completed by a social worker from the Council’s Disabled Children’s Service and it considered Mrs X and her family’s support needs including any caring responsibilities;
• wrote to Mrs X in April 2023 and explained its reasons for the safeguarding investigation. The Council accepted it had delayed completing this recommendation and apologised to Mrs X; and
• offered Mrs X £300 as a symbolic payment for the faults identified however, Mrs X did not accept it.

Back to top

Findings

Mrs X’s request for a social worker

27. Although the Review Panel at stage three of the investigation recommended upholding Mrs X’s complaint about Y not having a social worker, the Council did not agree with it. As explained in paragraph 10 of this decision, a council does not have to agree with the recommendations but should explain to the complainant its reasons why. In this case, the Council explained to Mrs X its reasons why. The Council was not at fault.
28. The Council agreed with the Panel’s recommendation in relation to completing a further assessment. Its Disabled Children’s Service completed a children and family assessment with Mrs X and her family, within four weeks of the Panel’s decision.

Remedy for faults identified in the safeguarding investigation

29. The Council agreed with the Panel’s recommendation in relation to explaining to Mrs X its actions and decision making which led to the safeguarding investigation. The Council told Mrs X in its letter to her in December 2022, it would complete this within four weeks of its letter. However, the Council did not write to Mrs X until April 2023, explaining its actions and decision making which led to the safeguarding investigation. The Council was at fault as it delayed completing this recommendation and caused Mrs X frustration. It accepted it was at fault and apologised to Mrs X. This was appropriate.
30. The Council offered Mrs X a symbolic payment of £300 for the faults identified in relation to the safeguarding investigation. Mrs X said the payment was not enough to remedy the injustice caused to her. However, this is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. I have therefore recommended the Council offers the payment to Mrs X again. It is open to Mrs X to accept it.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed it will re-offer Mrs X the symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge injustice caused by the faults identified in relation to the safeguarding investigation.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was at fault however it has already remedied the injustice caused which was appropriate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman