Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed excessively in completing a stage two investigation of her complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. We found some fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £150 and improve the information it holds about advocates.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that Reading Borough Council (the Council) failed to complete the stage two investigation of her complaint about children’s services in accordance with the recommendations from a previous complaint. This has caused Mrs B ongoing distress and frustration.

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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have only investigated the administration of the complaints procedure and not the substantive issues raised in the complaint. If Mrs B is dissatisfied with the stage two outcome, she can escalate her complaint to stage three of the statutory procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, and the Council. I have also considered the guidance on the statutory children’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Are we getting the best from children’s social care complaints?’ published in March 2015 and guide for practitioners about the statutory complaints procedure published in March 2021.
6. Mrs B 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

Statutory complaints procedure

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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 to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
10. 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.
11. The guidance says that a child or young person making a complaint is entitled to advocacy support. It also says councils should consider how met the varying needs of complainants who have language or communication difficulties and may wish to publicise any facilities available to complainants from voluntary organisations and local community/self-help groups.

What happened

12. In February 2022 the Council decided to investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of children’s social care in respect of her son at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. She complained to us about delay in the investigation. On 14 October 2022 we upheld her complaint and the Council agreed to complete the investigation in 13 weeks (by 13 January 2023).
13. On 20 October 2022 the complaints manager instructed the Investigating Officer (IO) to continue the investigation on the basis of the complaint statement he had prepared in July 2022. The Council agreed that the policy for dealing with persistent complainants would not apply to the complaint investigation and that the IO would be given access to her son’s social care records. The IO said Mrs B requested further amendments to the statement of complaint.
14. On 3 November 2022 the IO requested further information from Mrs B. Mrs B says it was an unreasonable request because the information was not easy for her to find, and the IO should have had access to the Council’s records and resources. On 1 December 2022 the IO sent an updated statement of complaint to Mrs B for her to approve. Mrs B did not respond to the statement. She says she did not know she had to do so, as the complaints guidance did not require approval of the complaint statement. She also says that it was clear from the Council’s communication that the Council would not accept any amendments to the statement of complaint.
15. On 14 January 2023 Mrs B asked the IO what was happening with the complaint and said she expected a response by 24 January 2023. The IO responded on 17 January 2023 saying he still had two members of staff to interview, and it was unlikely he would complete the report before the end of January 2023. He said there were ‘numerous points of clarification’ that Mrs B could provide and he would send a request for these in a day or two.
16. On 18 January 2023 the IO sent a request to Mrs B for a list of key documents which she had listed in her complaint but which the IO had been unable to locate in the records. The IO considered these were essential to enable him to carry out a full investigation. Mrs B says she was surprised to receive these queries at such a late stage and felt the IO had not fully understood her complaint.
17. Mrs B replied on the 31 January 2023 saying she was ‘at capacity’ and would get back to him when she was able to. She sent a further email suggesting that an advocate may be able to help her, but the contacts provided by the Council had proved unsuccessful. The IO responded asking for an approximate timescale and said the responses need only be brief.
18. On 2 February 2023 the Council provided information about organisations that may be able to provide advocacy. Mrs B replied saying that one of the organisations could only provide emotional support and not advocacy.
19. The IO sent a reminder email to Mrs B for the information on 18 March 2023. Mrs B replied suggesting a virtual meeting a few days after 30 March 2023 when she would have had a chance to refocus on the complaint. She also gave further details about her own health issues and how this impacted on her ability to process and respond to information. The IO said 11,12,13 April might be possible, but he would have to check the Independent Person’s (IP) availability.
20. The IO did not contact Mrs B again until 2 May 2023. He apologised for not contacting the IP as previously agreed. He then arranged a video call for 16 May 2023. He requested the information again and Mrs B supplied it later that day.
21. Mrs B complained to us on 22 May 2023 about the continued delay in completing the stage two investigation.
22. The IO and IP completed their investigation in early July 2023 and the Council sent their reports, along with its adjudication letter, to Mrs B on 11 July 2023.

Analysis

23. The Council should have completed the stage two investigation by 13 January 2023. It did not complete it until 11 July 2023, six months late. I have concluded some of the delay was due to fault by the Council with some contribution from Mrs B.
24. The IO had asked Mrs B for one email on 3 November 2022 which Mrs B did not provide. She believed he already had a copy of it. He sent her an updated copy of the statement of complaint on 2 December 2023 but did not explicitly request her approval. I agree it is good practice to agree a statement of complaint before starting an investigation but given the length of time this matter had already taken, I consider the IO could have continued the investigation without Mrs B’s approval. He did not provide an update on progress until Mrs B contacted him on 14 January 2023 and only then asked Mrs B for a significant amount of information. I consider he could have asked for this at an earlier point and maintained better contact with Mrs B between October 2022 and January 2023. The failure to do so was fault.
25. However, Mrs B did not provide the requested information until 16 May 2023 (4 months later) following the virtual meeting, despite being prompted on several occasions by the IO. Once the IO had received this information and spoken to Mrs B, he completed the investigation in less than two months. The IO caused a month of this delay by failing to check the IP’s availability. If he had done so as agreed in March 2023 it is possible the meeting could have been held a month sooner in mid-April.
26. I also note Mrs B suggested an advocate may help her respond more quickly to the request for information but the Council, referring to the guidance, said it only provided advocates for young people and children and provided details of local services. I consider this was a reasonable first response but given that Mrs B continued to express difficulties with responding to the request for information and explained how she had not been able to find an advocate herself, I would have expected the Council to have explored this situation in more detail with Mrs B in accordance with paragraph 3.4.3 of the guidance. In the end a video conference call was sufficient to explain what was required and elicit the necessary response. This could have been arranged much sooner with better communication.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. In recognition of the frustration and distress caused to Mrs B by the delay, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Mrs B and pays her £150.
28. The Council has agreed to this recommendation.
29. I also recommended that within three months the Council;
• reviews the availability of advocates in the local area so it can provide accurate information to complainants, and
• ensure that where complainants are expressing difficulties in engaging with the complaints process that the Council takes prompt action to resolve the situation in accordance with the statutory guidance.
30. The Council has agreed to make contact with advocacy providers in the community to see what is available and on receipt of any useful information, it will add information to the website so that complainants are aware of what is available to them. I am satisfied this meets the first recommendation.
31. The Council has not agreed to the second point as it is already contained in paragraph 1.1.1 of the statutory guidance and dealt with by agreeing to the first point. On reflection I agree that the second recommendation is unnecessary.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mrs B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman