Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his complaint about how it dealt with a child protection plan for his two children through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council failed to complete stage two of the complaint procedure in line with the statutory timescales. The Council has already taken action to improve its services. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a symbolic amount of £250 to recognise the frustration and distress caused to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his complaint about how it dealt with a child protection plan for his two children through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Mr X said this caused him and his family frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the documents Mr X sent and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the document the Council sent in response to my enquiries.
7. Mr 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Child protection

8. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
10. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.

Children’s statutory complaints process

11. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
13. 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 investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks (65 working days) to complete stage two of the process from the date of request, or the date the complaint is finalised.
14. 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. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
15. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

16. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2022 about the way it had managed child protection procedures for his children, and the actions of its social workers since March 2022. Mr X raised 39 points of complaint.
17. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s complaint within the 20 working days. He asked the Council to consider the matter at stage two of the complaint procedure at the end of August 2022. The Council stated it would appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) and sent him information about the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
18. The Council appointed an IO and an IP and the IO contacted Mr X at the beginning of September. The IO discussed the statement of complaint with Mr X. Mr X signed the statement of complaint and the IO began their investigation on 13 November 2022.
19. The IO told Mr X the investigation would likely take 65 days to complete in January 2023.
20. The IO completed their investigation on 14 February 2023 and sent their report to the Council the following day. It considered eight points of complaint. The IO upheld two points, partially upheld two points, and did not uphold four points. It recommended the Council apologise to Mr X for the identified faults and make service improvements.
21. Mr X asked the Council to progress his complaint to stage three in May 2023 as it had not provided a response at stage two. The Council explained that due to resourcing demand the Adjudicating Officer had been unable to provide the Council’s response. It told Mr X he could complain to us about the delay but it could not progress to stage three until the stage two had been completed.
22. Mr X complained to us about the Council’s delay in progressing his complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure in May 2023.
23. In response to my enquiries the Council stated the delay in providing its stage two adjudication letter was caused by the workload of the Adjudicating Officer, which was impacted by a vacancy occurring in October 2022 in another senior role. It had now appointed and trained a deputy Adjudicating Officer to consider statutory complaints, which it said will significantly improve its ability to deliver stage two responses in line with the statutory guidance.
24. The Council had also identified a new process of scheduling meetings between the Adjudicating Officer, the deputy Adjudicating Officer and Statutory Complaints Officers once it receives an IO and IP report to ensure it delivers an appropriate and timely response to the complainant.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of July 2023 with its adjudication letter. It apologised for the delay and agreed with the IO’s findings. It apologised and acknowledged the impact for the faults identified. The Council told Mr X of his right to progress to the final stage of the complaint procedure.

My findings

26. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2022, and escalated his complaint to stage two when he did not receive a response within the 20-day timescale. The Council agreed to complete stage two of the statutory complaint procedure. The initial delay in the responding to Mr X’s complaint within the timescale set out in the guidance was fault. However, I do not find that it caused Mr X an injustice. This is because it is more likely, on balance that Mr X would have progressed his complaint to stage two, and the Council started this without further delay.
27. The Council appointed an IO and IP without delay. The IO contacted Mr X and agreed the statement of complaint on 13 November 2022. Statutory guidance states the Council should then have provided its stage two response within 65 working days, so by 16 February 2023. The Council did not provide a response until 24 July 2023 which was a delay of 108 working days. That was fault and caused Mr X frustration and distress. The Council had already apologised for the delays and I recommended a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
28. The Council has issued its stage two response and provided Mr X with his right to progress to the third stage of the statutory complaint procedure if he remains dissatisfied. That is the correct process to follow.
29. The Council identified the cause of the delay in the statutory complaints procedure and took appropriate action to prevent the same faults occurring in the future. I did not make any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within one month of this decision the Council will pay Mr X a symbolic amount of £250 to recognise the frustration and distress caused to him by the Council’s delay.
31. Within three months of this decision the Council will provide us with evidence of:
• improved timeliness in its stage two complaint response in the children’s statutory complaint procedure as a result of its service improvements; and
• an example of, and minutes from, a meeting between the Adjudicating Officer, deputy Adjudicating Officer and Statutory Complaints Office outlined in paragraph 24.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendation to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman