Summary: Miss X complained about delays in the Council's investigation of her stage two statutory children’s complaint. The Council was at fault for more than eight months delay. It was also at fault for failing to comply with a previous Ombudsman's investigation into the same issue within the agreed timescale. The faults caused Miss X avoidable frustration and distress but also meant the Council delayed in taking action to resolve the substantive issues she complained to it about. To remedy this injustice, the Council will apologise to Miss X and pay her £400. The Council was also at fault for delays in carrying out the stage two investigation into twelve other complainants’ statutory children’s complaints. This caused them distress and frustration also. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise, make payments in recognition of the delay, and complete the stage two investigations within 65 working days of my final decision. To prevent the faults occurring again, the Council will review its practices and carry out staff training.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed completing stage two of her complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
2. She said this caused her frustration and distress, compounded by the fact the Ombudsman previously found the Council at fault for stage two delays. She said the delays meant the issues she raised in her complaint remained unresolved.

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 may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have considered:
• all the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
8. Miss X and the organisation 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 law and guidance

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. We call this the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published guidance for practitioners on the procedures in 2021, revised in February 2022, setting out our expectations.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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 (IO) and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation.
12. Following the investigation, a senior manager (adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The manager considers the investigator’s and independent person’s reports and based on them, decides what the Council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action the Council will take.
13. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
14. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required. This includes the adjudication.
15. 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.

What happened

16. A previous Ombudsman’s investigation (21 010 812) noted the Council accepted Miss X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure in March 2020. We found:
• by February 2022, the Council had not yet begun the stage two consideration of Miss X’s complaint;
• there had been significant delay which was not due to Council fault; but
• the Council’s actions from July 2021 caused avoidable delay.
17. The Council agreed to begin the stage two investigation within one month of the date of the Ombudsman’s decision, and complete it within 65 working days. This means the Council should have completed the stage two investigation no later than 21 May 2022.
18. The Council appointed an IO and IP and received their reports on 30 June 2022.
19. The Council did not issue its adjudication letter, setting out its view on the IO’s investigation and allowing Miss X to request a stage three, until 14 February 2023. In its cover email, it apologised for the distress Miss X experienced due to its delay.
20. Miss X had fifteen elements to her complaint. The Council agreed with the investigator’s findings and upheld or partially upheld six of those elements. It agreed to carry out a number of actions as a result of Miss X’s complaint, including carrying out a carers assessment and improving its child protection procedures.
21. I asked the Council the reasons for the delay. It told me it restructured the Children’s Services department in October 2021, which saw the departure of all the existing managers. None of the new managers it appointed had experience of issuing adjudication responses. It said the manager who completed the adjudication letter on Miss X’s complaint was not fully aware of the timescales required.
22. The Council told me its Complaints Team was working with the management of Children’s Services to make improvements to its practice. It said it was exploring whether the Complaints Team could offer support or training.

Other complainants

23. The Council told me it had received seventeen requests for a stage two investigation under the children’s statutory complaints procedure since February 2022. Twelve of the seventeen were ongoing and had already taken longer than 65 working days.

Findings

Fault for delay in considering Miss X’s stage two complaint

24. A key principle of the children’s statutory complaints procedure is to ensure that those who make complaints about children’s services have their concerns resolved swiftly, and wherever possible, by the people who provide the service locally.
25. The law and statutory guidance is clear; councils must complete stage two investigations under the statutory children’s complaints procedure within a maximum of 65 working days of the date they receive the complaint. We previously found fault with the Council for some undue delay which, as of February 2022, contributed to the fact that Miss X had waited almost two years for the Council to begin the stage two investigation after she complained. As part of the remedy for Miss X’s complaint to us, the Council agreed to carry out the stage two investigation within 65 working days.
26. The Council did not do this; it took 249 working days. The Council was at fault for undue delay. It was also at fault for failing to comply with the agreed recommendations in the Ombudsman’s previous investigation.
27. These faults caused Miss X distress and frustration and meant the Council delayed carrying out the actions it agreed in the adjudication response, including undertaking a new carers assessment. The Council has apologised for the distress Miss X experienced. The apology partially remedies Miss X’s injustice but the delay also warrants a symbolic payment that takes into account the distress caused by delay as well as the impact caused by the delayed actions. I have made a recommendation to that effect below.
28. I am concerned about the reasons the Council gave for the delay. I note the Council did not receive the IO and IP reports until around a month after the 65 working days elapsed, but the bulk of the delay was due to waiting for a manager to issue the adjudication response. This took a further eight months. The Council completed its restructuring in October 2021, almost eighteen months ago. This is long enough ago to expect the Council to have robust systems in place to ensure it is able to issue adjudications without delay.
29. Although the Council says the new management are inexperienced in carrying out adjudications and the manager in this case was uncertain of the timescales, the law and guidance are clear on what an adjudication is expected to include and equally clear that adjudication forms part of the stage two and must therefore be issued within 65 working days. That law has been in place since 2006. The Council should have taken substantive actions to address the adjudication delay when it became apparent. Instead, it allowed the case to drift for an unacceptable amount of time.
30. I am pleased to hear the Council's Complaints Team is working with the management of Children’s Services to see if it can provide any support with the adjudication process. However, to ensure this fault does not occur again, I have also made recommendations at paragraph 36.

Fault for delay affecting twelve other complainants

31. The Council told us that since February 2022, there are twelve cases where the stage two investigation is ongoing and has already taken more than 65 working days. These delays are fault as they mean the complaints exceed the statutory time limits. The delays are likely to have caused the twelve complainants frustration and distress and meant their complaints have gone for long periods unresolved.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 31 (2B)). I have set out below the actions the Council should take to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and those people who are also caused an injustice by the Council’s fault.   
33. Within one month of the date of my final decision the Council will pay Miss X £400 in recognition of the distress and frustration she experienced. The Ombudsman typically recommends payments of between £100 and £300 for distress but can recommend up to £1000 where the distress has been severe or prolonged. I have considered the circumstances of this complaint and in particular that some of Miss X’s distress stemmed from the fact that the delay considering her complaint meant the Council delayed in carrying out actions to remedy its failings. I am therefore satisfied the injustice Miss X experienced justifies a higher payment.
34. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will also carry out the following actions.
• Write to each of the 12 complainants it has identified to apologise for its delay completing the stage two investigation. It will explain they have been identified following an investigation by us into another case where the person complained about delay in the statutory process. It will ask each complainant to confirm whether they have already brought a complaint about delay in completing the stage two investigation to us. If so, we will consider those cases individually.
• In respect of those complainants who have not already approached us to complain about delay, the Council will calculate a financial remedy, as outlined below, in recognition of the frustration and distress caused by the delay. It should pay this to each eligible complainant. This is in line with what we would have recommended if they had complained directly to us.
• The Council will pay each eligible complainant £25 per month for each full month of delay above the 65 working day statutory timescale. The timescale starts from the date the complainant requested the Council conduct a stage two investigation until:
1. the date the Council completes the stage two investigation by issuing its adjudication letter; or
2. the date of my final decision, whichever is the sooner of the two.
35. In addition to the financial remedy for these eligible complainants:
• the Council will complete the stage two investigations within 65 working days of the final decision on this case; and
• the Council will ensure each complainant is aware they can escalate their complaint to stage three of the statutory procedure, should they remain dissatisfied following the completion of stage two.
36. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• review its practices to ensure they include a route of escalation to a senior manager when there is undue and avoidable delay in carrying out adjudications of stage two complaints; and
• carry out training for all senior managers who carry out adjudications. This will cover that adjudications are the final part of the stage two response and the entire response should be completed in a maximum of 65 working days; in accordance with the law and statutory guidance, Getting the Best from Complaints.
37. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice for Miss X and twelve other complainants. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman