Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to escalate his statutory children’s complaint to the stage three panel. The Council was not at fault in how it decided not to accept Mr X’s late request for the panel. It was at fault for its other rationales for refusing Mr X’s request. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice, because the Council still would not have carried out the panel.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to escalate his statutory children’s complaint to the stage three panel. Mr X said this meant the Council failed to give him the opportunity to resolve what he feels are serious failings in its children’s services.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 Mr X provided and gave him an opportunity to speak with me;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance.
8. 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 law and guidance

Child protection

9. If a council receives notice that there are concerns about a child’s safety, it is under a duty to investigate. If it decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a child protection conference.
10. The child protection conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a child protection plan.
11. After the initial child protection conference, there will be one or more review child protection conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.

The statutory children’s complaints process

12. The statutory children’s complaints process was set up to give children and those representing them an opportunity for a thorough independent investigation of their concerns. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 specify what can be considered using the statutory complaints process. Child protection issues are largely exempt.
13. The statutory process has three stages:
• Stage one - local resolution by the council.
• Stage two – an investigation by an investigating officer (the IO) who will prepare a detailed report and findings. The investigation is overseen by an independent person (the IP) to ensure its impartiality. The council then issues an adjudication letter which sets out its response to the findings.
• Stage three – an independent panel to consider their outstanding issues.
14. ‘Children's social care: getting the best from complaints’ (the Guidance) is the statutory guidance on children’s complaints. The guidance says that once a complaint has been answered at stage one, the complainant is entitled to go to stage two and three if they wish it.
15. An exception to this is where a complainant requests a stage three panel late. Regulation 18(2) says requests must be made within 20 working days of the date the complainant received the council’s adjudication letter.
16. Our guidance, ‘Children’s statutory complaints process- Guide for practitioners’ says we expect councils to consider the circumstances of each case and whether it is reasonable for that person to have made a late request.
17. The Council's corporate complaints procedure, for dealing with complaints about other issues, has two stages: a stage 1 investigation and stage 2 review.

What happened

18. From late 2020 to mid-2021, the Council made Mr X’s child, W, subject to child protection proceedings to ensure their safety. Mr X complained to the Council in August 2021. He said the chair of the child protection conferences, Officer A, had prevented him speaking during a recent meeting and he was not happy about their involvement in matters about contact with W.
19. The Council decided to investigate Mr X’s concerns under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. It sent its stage one response in early November 2021.
20. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. The Council appointed an IO to investigate and IP to oversee the investigation. The IO divided Mr X’s complaint into four parts (1a, 1b, 2, 3 and 4):
• Complaint 1: Officer A did not act in W’s best interests and prevented Mr X’s involvement in the child protection process. Complaint 1(a) was that Officer A prevented Mr X from having meaningful input into the initial child protection conference. Complaint 1(b) was that Officer A did not allow Mr X to share his views or ask questions in the final child protection conference.
• Complaint 2: Officer A did not summarise the final child protection conference at the end of the meeting.
• Complaint 3: Officer A did not respond to Mr X’s contact after the final child protection conference.
• Complaint 4: Officer A colluded with W’s mother to prevent him from having contact with W.
21. The IO did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints. The IP found the IO investigated the complaint fairly, comprehensively and efficiently. The IP agreed with the IO’s findings.
22. The Council issued its adjudication on the stage two investigation and IP’s report in late October 2022. It agreed with the IO’s findings and set out Mr X’s right to request a stage three panel. It said it usually expected complainants to ask for a panel within 20 working days.

Request for a stage three panel

23. In early November 2022, Mr X asked for a stage three panel. The Council asked Mr X for more information about why he wanted a stage three panel in mid-November.
24. Mr X did not reply to the Council until late January 2023 when he said he wanted to request a stage three panel again. He reiterated part of his complaint; that Officer A colluded with W’s mother to prevent him having contact with W, meaning he had not seen W in a year.
25. In late February 2023, the Council refused Mr X’s request for a stage three panel. It said:
• the stage two investigation had not considered complaint 1(a) because the Council had answered it previously. Therefore, the stage three panel could not consider it.
• the Council felt it was unlikely a stage three panel would conclude differently to the IO on complaint points 1(b) and 2.
• complaint 4 related to a decision made by the courts, not Officer A. The statutory complaints procedure was for complaints about decisions made by the Council, so complaint 4 felt outside of the complaints procedure remit.
• Mr X had taken too long to request a stage three panel.
26. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s refusal and complained to the Ombudsman. He said the Council had not told him about the timescale for requesting a stage three panel. He also said it had not considered his mitigating circumstances; that he had to attend a four-day court hearing in December 2022.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it considered the following factors when deciding it would not exercise discretion to accept Mr X’s late stage three request.
• Mr X did not give any reasons for the delay in requesting the panel.
• By the time Mr X asked for the panel, the officer who prepared the Council’s adjudication on the stage two investigation had left the post. This would impact on the stage three, even though it could send another officer.
• Mr X had a history of significant delay in communicating with the Council during the complaints process and during a previous statutory complaint.

Findings

28. The child protection issues Mr X complained of do not come under the remit of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Nor do his concerns about what he feels was Officer A’s involvement in his contact arrangements. Therefore, it is unlikely we would have found fault if the Council had decided to consider Mr X’s complaint using the corporate complaints procedure, which is a two stage process.
29. However, the Council accepted Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure and it responded at stage one. At that point, the Council had to progress Mr X’s complaint to stages two and three if he wanted it to and if he made his request within the 20 working day timescale set out in law.
30. The Council properly informed Mr X of the timescale for requesting a stage three panel and Mr X made his first request for a panel in time. However, he did not respond to the Council’s request for more information until late January 2023, three months after the Council send its stage two response.
31. When Mr X contacted it in January 2023, the Council considered relevant information including his pattern of behaviour during the complaint and the fact he did not give any explanation for the delay. It concluded there were no good reasons to accept Mr X’s late complaint. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it is made without fault. The Council was not at fault in how it came to that decision so I cannot question the outcome.
32. In any event, Mr X told me the reason for his delay in asking for the stage three was because he had to attend a four-day court hearing in December 2022. While I accept this would have taken some time and been disruptive, I am of the view that had Mr X told the Council this, it probably would not have agreed the reason was sufficient to justify it accepting the late request.
33. The Council was at fault for the other rationales it gave in its refusal. The law does not allow a council to refuse a stage three request on the grounds a panel would likely not come to a different conclusion to the stage two investigation, that a panel could not consider a particular complaint or that a complaint was about a matter a council was not responsible for. This fault did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice because, but for the fault, the Council would still not have held a stage three panel as Mr X’s request was late.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. I found fault but it did not cause significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman