Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not arrange a suitable care package for her two children, who have additional needs, following an accident which required her admission to hospital. Miss X said the stage two investigation did not consider all the issues and evidence. Miss X said the Council did not fully address her concerns at the stage three meeting. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused distress for her and her children. There was fault in the way the Council did not adhere to the statutory timescales in the complaint process. The Council already accepted fault in the handling of the care of Miss X’s children and offered to pay a remedy to acknowledge the distress this caused. Miss X did not suffer any significant further injustice by the delay. The Council should complete its previous offer to Miss X to apologise for the distress and make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not arrange a suitable care package for her two children, who have additional needs, following an accident which required her admission to hospital. Miss X said the stage two investigation did not consider all the issues and evidence. Miss X said the Council did not fully address her concerns at the stage three meeting. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused distress for her and her children.

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 a Council’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

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. Miss 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

Background information

7. In February 2022 the Ombudsman issued practitioner guidance on the Children’s statutory complaints process.
8. Councils have a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need in their area who appears to them to need accommodation because:

• there is no-one who has parental responsibility for the child;
• the child is lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for the child is prevented, whether permanently or temporarily and for whatever reason, from providing suitable accommodation or care.

9. The council may not provide accommodation in these circumstances if the person who has parental responsibility objects. It can either provide the accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided. A child accommodated in this way is a ‘Looked After Child’ (LAC). (Children Act 1989, section 20)
10. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.

What happened

17. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
18. Miss X fell at home in November 2021. Her neighbour cared for her children while she was in hospital. Miss X was discharged but returned to hospital a week later. The children were placed in an emergency foster care placement. The carer contacted the police due to her concerns about the children. The police took the children to their maternal aunts home.
19. Miss X complained to the Council in June 2022. She said the foster carer placement was unsuitable for her children. The Council acknowledged the complaint and stated it previously conducted an internal review of the incident.
20. The Council provided its stage one response in July 2022. The Council partially upheld some of the complaint. It did not uphold some parts of the complaint. It could not make a finding on some parts of the complaint. Miss X was not happy with the stage one response. She requested the Council escalate her complaint to stage two.
21. In August 2022, the Council offered Miss X an alternative dispute resolution to speed up the process. The Council accepted the respite placement caused Miss X and her children distress. The Council offered Miss X £200 for her distress and £300 for each of her children in recognition of their distress.
22. Miss X did not accept the offer and asked the Council to complete a stage two investigation. The Council agreed to proceed to stage two at the end of August 2022 and appointed an investigating officer (Ms O) and an independent person (Ms P).
23. Miss X met with the IO and IP in September 2022 to confirm Miss X’s statement of complaint.
24. Miss X signed the statement of complaint in October 2022.
25. Ms O interviewed Council officers in December 2022.
26. Ms O provided her investigation report in January 2023. The report upheld some parts of Miss X’s complaint, did not uphold some and did not make a finding on some parts. The report recommended a service review to improve working with the health service and an apology. Ms P agreed with the report.
27. The Council provided its stage two adjudication in February 2023. The Council agreed with the investigation report and accepted the recommendations. The Council apologised and agreed to complete a service review.
28. Miss X was not happy with the stage two investigation. She requested the Council escalate her complaint to stage three at the end of March 2023.
29. The Council held the stage three panel meeting in May 2023. Miss X attended the meeting and stated she was not happy with the stage two investigation. The panel members noted Miss X signed the statement of complaint and presented her views in the meeting. The panel members discussed the remedy offered and agreed it was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
30. The Council sent Miss X its stage three complaint response in June 2023. The Council accepted the stage three meeting recommendations. The Council repeated its financial remedy offer to Miss X.
31. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to apologise and offer her an adequate financial remedy.
32. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it completed the three-stage complaint process as set out in law. It said the result was fair and proportionate.

My findings

33. We do not re-investigate a complaint which has been through the statutory children's complaint procedure unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
34. Ms O carried out a thorough and detailed investigation of the matters in the statement of complaint, agreed by Miss X. The investigation was overseen by Ms P. Ms O spoke to Miss X as well as Council officers involved in the events complained about. Ms O also considered relevant documentation relating to Miss X’s case.
35. Ms O addressed each of Miss X’s complaints and provided a decision on whether to uphold the complaint. Each decision was supported by the evidence available.
36. The stage three review considered the adequacy of the stage two investigation and reached findings on each element of Miss X’s complaint. It considered Miss X’s concerns about the stage two investigation. The review also made a recommendation about a remedy for Miss X and her children. Again, these decisions were supported by the evidence available.
37. The Council agreed with the stage three findings and offered Miss X £800 in recognition of the distress for her and her family.
38. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Miss X’s complaint.
39. I recognise the situation has been distressing for Miss X and she disagrees with the Councils conclusions. But its decisions were taken without fault.
40. The Council offered a £800 remedy for the fault it identified throughout its investigation. This is £200 for her distress and £300 for each of her children. This remedy is in line with our guidance on remedies. I cannot add to this.

Complaint handling

41. The statutory complaint process sets out timescales to complete the investigations. The Council responded within the 20-day timescale for the stage one response.
42. The process allows 65 days to complete the stage two investigation. The Council took 118 days.
43. The Council has to complete the stage three review meeting within 30 days. The panel meeting took 29 days.
44. The delay completing the stage two investigation is fault. The delays were in completing interviews with Council officers. This delay did not cause any significant injustice to Miss X as the investigation continued.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X and her children for the distress of the incident as it previously offered. This apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman’s new guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Miss X the £800 already offered to acknowledge the distress for her and her children.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of adhering to the statutory timescales.
46. The Council should provide evidence of the actions taken to satisfy the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which the Council has offered to remedy.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman