Summary: Mrs X complained about the way in which the Council completed the children’s statutory complaints procedure in response to her complaint it failed to provide her family with appropriate support. We have found fault with the way in which some parts of the procedure were completed, causing injustice. The faults are: the recommended payment to recognise the impact of the Council’s failings on the family did not properly reflect the extent of this injustice in line with our published remedies guidance; and the Council did not properly implement some of the other recommendations. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mrs X; make a payment to properly reflect the impact of the failings; make a payment to recognise the distress caused by the failure to properly implement some of the recommendations; carry out a new statutory carer’s assessment; hold a meeting with Mrs X to discuss the family’s support needs and develop an action plan for options for assessing and providing support for the family; and complete the outstanding service improvement recommendation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s completion of the children’s statutory complaints procedure in response to her complaint it failed to provide appropriate social care support for her children, who I am calling Y and Z, and for her as their carer.
2. Mrs X says:

• the investigating officer and review panel’s recommendations did not properly reflect the extent of the failures found and their impact on her and the children; and
• the Council has not carried out the recommendations.

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.
4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mrs X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mrs X and the Council provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mrs X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Complaints about children’s social care: 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. The three stages are:
1. First stage: Local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond;
2. Second stage: 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) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence;
• Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. 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; and
• 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.
3. Third stage: 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

Our role

11. The statutory complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory complaint process, we would not normally re-investigate it.
12. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

13. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

14. Mrs X had been in contact with the Council’s children’s social care team for some years about support for Y and Z’s needs, and for herself as their carer. Child and family assessments were completed but Mrs X was not happy with the response to her requests for support for her family.
15. Mrs X complained to the Council it had failed to carry out timely and meaningful assessments or provide the family with any meaningful support. As she was not satisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint, the Council progressed this to stage two of the statutory complaint procedure.

Stage two of the statutory complaint procedure

16. The Council appointed an independent investigating officer (IO) to investigate Mrs X’s complaint, and an independent person (IP) to oversee the investigation.
17. The IO agreed the statement of complaint with Mrs X before starting their investigation. They completed the investigation and issued their report. This set out details of the interviews conducted with social workers and other officers involved with the family, the relevant information from the interviews, the case notes and other documents provided by Mrs X and the Council for the investigation.
18. The IO explained their findings and reasons for partially or fully, or not upholding each of Mrs X’s eight complaints. The IO fully upheld five of the complaints, partially upheld one of the complaints, and did not uphold two of the complaints.
19. The report also set out the IO’s recommendations about the action the Council should take to remedy its failings.
20. The Council told Mrs X it accepted the IO’s findings and would implement all their recommendations.

Stage three of the statutory complaint procedure

21. Mrs X was not satisfied with the IO’s findings and recommendations. She submitted her response to the report and asked for a stage three panel review.
22. A stage three panel hearing was held. The Council and Mrs X, who was supported by a keyworker, attended the hearing. Mrs X was given the opportunity to explain her concerns about the outcome of the IO investigation and provide any further information relevant for the review.
23. Following the hearing the panel completed their report. This confirmed the panel had considered the IO’s investigation report, Mrs X’s comprehensive submission in response, and the further information raised at the review hearing.
24. The panel decided to fully uphold the partially upheld complaint and one of the complaints not upheld by the IO. They confirmed the IO’s finding not to uphold the remaining complaint. They also made some further recommendations in addition to the IO’s recommendations,
25. The Council sent Mrs X a copy of the panel’s report. It confirmed it accepted the findings and recommendations.
26. Mrs X told the Council the panel and IO’s recommendations did not reflect the evidence and she was unhappy with the proposed remedies. She then brought her complaint to us.

The outcome of the statutory complaints process

27. Seven of Mrs X’s eight complaints were upheld. These were:

• Complaint 1: Elements of the Stage 1 complaint were not investigated or answered;
• Complaint 2: The Council failed to carry out timely Child and Family Assessments for Y and Z and failed to identify any meaningful recommendations or outcomes in the assessments;
• Complaint 3: The Council failed to carry out a timely, thorough, or meaningful Carer’s Assessment for Mrs X;
• Complaint 4: The Council failed to provide the support required to help Y attend school;
• Complaint 5: The Council failed to work with Y or Z to ‘transition’ them from Children’s Social Care to Adult Social Care;
• Complaint 6: Professionals involved with Y and Z failed to work collaboratively and in partnership with each other and with Mrs X; and
• Complaint 8: There was delay appointing a social worker.

28. One complaint was not upheld. This was Complaint 7: Professionals failed to follow correct procedures to safeguard Z.

The IO and panel recommendations and the Council’s response

29. The IO and Panel made the following recommendations about the actions the Council should take to remedy its failings towards the family. I have also set out the Council’s actions in response to each of these recommendations:
1. Recommendation: The Council acknowledge:

• due process was not followed when carrying out the Child and Family Assessments and Carer’s Assessments;
• it did not communicate adequately with the family by sharing assessments and panel decisions;
• it should have made multiple attempts of varying methods to communicate and work with both Y and Z; and
• it failed to work with Y or Z to ‘transition’ them from Children’s Social Care to Adult Social Care, and professionals involved with Y and Z failed to work collaboratively and in partnership with each other and with Mrs X.
• Council response: The Council apologised to Mrs X for its failings in its formal responses to the reports.
2. Recommendation:
• A payment of £750 in recognition of the impact of the Council’s failings on the family comprising £250 for Mrs X and £500 for Y.
• Council response: The payment was offered to Mrs X. She did not accept it because she had referred her complaint to us.
3. Recommendation:
• The Council inform Mrs X of the outcome of the funding panel decision in October 2022, explaining reasons for the decision, if not already done; and
• The Council ensure any outcomes for support were progressed as soon as possible and, if necessary or appropriate, backdated.
• Council response; This has been done. Mrs X is accessing funding through Early Help Individual Payments (EHIPs).
4. Recommendation:
• Extra tuition should be arranged for Z in recognition of the significant amount of education missed.
• Council response: Following an annual review in June 2023, Education Other Than at School (EOTAS) was agreed for Z. A farm placement requested by Mrs X and Z was arranged.
5. Recommendation;
• Confirm to Mrs X a referral for Z has been made to the transition team.
• Council response: This was completed in January 2023
6. Recommendation;
• The Council assess whether the outcomes of any carer’s assessments completed would be different had information about a family member’s health been correctly recorded, and if so, make the required changes to the recommendations; and
• Update the carer’s assessment where necessary and progress any recommendations for support, including short breaks, as quickly as possible in accordance with Z’s wishes and feelings.
• Council response: A carer’s assessment was completed in February 2023. Child and Family Assessments have been completed which considered the carer’s needs and support. The last assessment was in July 2023. Short breaks have not been provided as Z has a school placement and Early Help payments are in place to support the family. It apologised for referring to the wrong family member but said this did not change the outcome.
7. Recommendation:
• Make further enquiries regarding the suitability, costings, and availability of the resource for Z, identified by Mrs X and progress this as quickly as possible to ensure Z is able to access education provision; and
• Should this resource not be available or appropriate, provide Z with a package of support which addresses their need for education and structured activities.
• Council response: Z is currently accessing alternative provision (a farm placement) via EOTAS.
8. Recommendation;
• The Council offer to meet Mrs X’s family to explain the specific roles and responsibilities of the teams within Children’s Social Care (as opposed to Education/SEND and Health) and discuss support available through Children’s Social Care funding so the family have a clear understanding about this.
• Council response: The Council offered Mrs X a meeting at the panel review hearing but this did not take place. Z’s case was closed to Children’s Social Care in August 2023.

Recommended service improvements

30. The IO and Panel also recommended the Council make a number of improvements to its Children’s Social Care service. The Council took the following action in response to these recommendations:
1. It accepted parents should not be made to feel their children have been “victim blamed” by social workers. It acknowledged this was Mrs X’s perception, although it was not the intention. It provides training to staff on how to speak to a child. Wishes and Feelings work is completed by social workers with children; Training is also provided during social worker pre-qualification training and post-qualification;
2. The Council has published a Children with Disabilities (CWD) threshold document on its website. The CWD ‘One Minute Guide’ is available, and all new staff are made aware of the different Children’s Social Care teams. The CWD Team is mentioned in the new staff induction booklet;
3. Staff should record the date assessments are shared with the family in case notes on the social care database. It has issued a reminder about this to staff;
4. It has sent reminders to all staff about the statutory rights of parents to request a standalone carer needs assessment and the need to advise them accordingly about the process for referral; and
5. It has reminded all staff that adjudication responses should be signed and dated.
31. It was also recommended the Council circulate minutes of any planning meetings such as Child in Need meetings to all participants, including parents, carers, and where appropriate young people, in a timely manner and in accordance with local protocols. The Council said it has provided Mrs X with copies of all minutes up to the closure of Z’s case to Children’s Social Care.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

32. As explained in paragraphs 11and 12, we would not normally re-investigate complaints which have been through the statutory complaint process. But we may look at whether:
1. there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three panel review that could call the findings into question;
2. the remedies proposed by the IO and panel were appropriate;
3. the council properly considered the IO and panel’s findings and recommendations; and
4. the council completed any recommendations without delay.

a) Stage two investigation and stage three review

33. Based on the evidence seen so far, my view is the Council properly completed these stages of the statutory complaints process. I consider:

• The IO and IP were appointed in accordance with the procedure;
• The IO carried out a robust and timely investigation and explained, in their report, the reasons for their findings and the evidence on which they were based;
• The Council arranged the panel review in a timely way when asked to do so by Mrs X;
• Mrs X was given the opportunity to submit her written response to the IO’s findings and recommendations to the panel and in person at the review hearing; and
• The panel completed their report in a timely way, and explained, in their report, the reasons for their findings and the evidence on which they were based.

34. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the finding on Complaint 7. But I don’t consider there were any flaws in the stage two investigation and stage three review which could call their findings on this complaint, or any of the other complaints, into question.
35. I have not found fault with the conduct of stage two and stage three of the statutory complaints process.

b) The recommendations

36. The IO had access to the relevant records, conducted interviews with the officers and others involved as well as speaking to Mrs X, Y and Z about their concerns and wishes regarding outcomes.
37. The panel considered the IO’s report and Mrs X’s further information and comments before making its findings and additional recommendations.
38. In my view the recommendations proposed by the IO and panel appropriately addressed the Council’s failings, with the exception of the recommendation for the payment in recognition of the impact of the failings on the family.
39. I have considered whether the recommended payment of £750 (comprising a payment of £250 to Mrs X and £500 to Y) is in line with the expectations in our published remedies guidance.
40. My view is that it is not because:

• there is nothing to show it took into account the impact of the failings on Z; and
• although the IO and panel found there had been very significant failings by the Council, including failing to; carry out timely and meaningful Child and Family Assessments and carer’s assessments; provide support to help Y attend school; and work with Y or Z to ‘transition’ them from Children’s Social Care to Adult Social Care, the extent of the impact of these failings on Mrs X, Y and Z does not appear to have been fully considered .

41. The impact, in my view, was that Mrs X, Y and Z missed out on the opportunity for support which should have been provided had meaningful assessments been completed, at a time when they were vulnerable and struggling. This caused them additional distress and worry during an already difficult period. I don’t consider the recommended payment properly reflected the extent of this injustice.
42. My view is the recommended payment should be increased to a total of £2,750 (£750 for Mrs X, £1,000 each for Y and Z).
43. Complaint 1 was upheld - the Council had not investigated or answered elements of Mrs X’s Stage 1 complaint. I understand from Mrs X this was that the Council had failed to consider and assess Y’s social care needs set out in section D of their EHC plan. Section D also said the Council’s relevant service team would make a referral for Y to Adult Social Care if appropriate.
44. Although no specific recommendation was made about the action the Council should take to remedy this failing, I consider it was appropriately addressed by the finding and recommendations about complaint 2 - the Council’s failure to identify any meaningful outcomes in the assessments for Y and Z. I also understand, following further contact by Mrs X, the Council is currently completing an Adult Social Care assessment for Y.

c) The Council’s consideration of the findings and recommendations

45. The Council considered, and decided to accept, all the IO and panel findings and recommendations. It sent Mrs X copies of the IO and panel reports and confirmed its response to the reports in accordance with the statutory complaints procedure.
46. I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council considered the outcome of the statutory complaints procedure.

d) The Council’s action to implement the recommendations

47. I have considered whether, having told Mrs X it would implement all the recommendations, the Council took appropriate action to do so.

The recommendations set out at paragraph 28 (c), (d), (f) and (g)

48. These were intended to remedy the Council’s failure to address Z’s need for education and structured activities and support to help them access this.
49. But the Council:

• has not provided details of the Early Help payments. I understand the only support currently in place for Z is 1.5 hours a week of youth worker support;
• has not provided evidence extra tuition was arranged for Z in recognition of the significant amount of education they missed;
• has not provided evidence Z was provided with a package of support which addressed their needs for education and structured activities; and
• said short breaks for Z had not been put in place because they had a school placement. But also, Education Other Than at School had been arranged, which suggests Z is unable to attend school.

50. I consider the information I have seen shows a piecemeal approach by the Council to the implementation of these recommendations, a continued lack of collaboration between the Council’s SEN and Children’s Social Care teams, confusion about whether Z was attending school and if not the support in place for their education and need for activities.
51. In my view the Council failed to properly consider a structured plan to implement the recommendations intended to remedy its previous failure to address Z’s support needs. This was fault.
52. Because of this, the Council missed the opportunity to ensure its Children’s Social Care and SEN teams worked together to focus on the support Z and their family needed going forward. This has caused Mrs X, Y and Z further upset, worry and uncertainty.

The recommendation at paragraph 28 (f)

53. This was intended to remedy the Council’s failure to properly assess Mrs X’s support needs as a carer.
54. Although it apologised for referring to the wrong family member in its previous assessment, the Council’s response to us does not indicate it understands it was another of Mrs X’s children, for whom she also has caring responsibilities, who was ill.
55. And there has been a delay in arranging the updated statutory carer’s assessment for Mrs X. It has still not been completed, as at the date of this final decision.
56. I consider the Council’s failure to carry out the updated carer’s assessment, more than a year after it agreed to this recommendation, is fault.
57. Mrs X has made it clear to the Council she is facing ongoing challenges with her caring responsibilities, and this failure has caused Mrs X further distress.

The recommendation at paragraph 28 (h)

58. This recommended the Council meet with Mrs X to explain the roles of the different teams within Children’s Social Care and the support options available. This meeting has not taken place. The Council says it offered a meeting at the panel review hearing, but I have no details about this.
59. In my view the Council has failed to take adequate steps to facilitate the meeting. This is fault.
60. Because of this Mrs X has missed the opportunity to discuss with the Council the teams’ roles and the support which could be provided.

Service improvement recommendations

61. I consider the Council took appropriate action to implement the service improvements, save for the recommendation at paragraph 30.
62. It has told us what it did to send minutes of meetings to Mrs X. But it has not said what it has done to implement the recommendation it ensure it sends meeting minutes in all cases to all participants in a timely manner and in accordance with local protocols.

Summary of findings of fault

63. I have found the following faults by the Council:
1. It did not properly implement the recommendations to:

• remedy the Council’s failure to address Z’s need for education and structured activities and support to help them access these;
• complete an updated statutory carer’s assessment for Mrs X; and
• hold a meeting with Mrs X.
2. It has not confirmed the action taken to ensure meeting minutes are sent to participants in all cases.
3. The recommended payment in recognition of the impact of the failings on the family was not in line with the expectations in our published remedies guidance.

64. Having completed the statutory complaints procedure which found significant failings, in my view it is extremely disappointing the Council did not then fully engage with the comprehensive recommendations intended to ensure the Council properly addressed the family’s support needs going forward.
65. The action set out below, which the Council has agreed to take, is intended to ensure the Council does so now.

Back to top

Agreed action

66. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mrs X for its failure to properly implement the recommendations to address Z’s support needs and hold a meeting with her and carry out an updated carer’s assessment. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mrs X £2,750, to be used for her and Y and Z’s benefit, in recognition of the impact on the family of the failings found by the statutory complaints procedure;
3. carry out an updated statutory carer’s assessment for Mrs Y;
4. pay Mrs X £550 to reflect the additional upset and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to properly implement all the IO and panel’s recommendations This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies;
5. arrange a meeting with Mrs X, attended by senior managers in the Children's Social Care, SEN and Adult Social Care (ASC) teams to discuss her concerns and the family’s support needs;
6. develop a clear action plan, involving Children’s Social Care, SEN and ASC, for assessing and providing support for Y, Z, and Mrs X stating who is responsible for taking the actions and by when. The action plan should be sent to Mrs X;
7. report back to us on the outcome of the meeting and with a copy of the action plan; and
8. report back on the action it has taken to implement recommendation at 29 (d) and ensure minutes of CSS meetings are sent to all participants in a timely way and in accordance with local protocols.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions as a suitable way to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman