Summary: Mrs G and Mr Y complained about the Council’s investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure into child protection matters regarding their granddaughter/daughter, F which resulted in contact restrictions. Although delayed, the Council properly investigated their complaints but failed to provide an adequate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults it identified. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs G and Mr Y to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Mr Y complained about the Council’s actions and decisions around child protection matters regarding their granddaughter/daughter, F, which resulted in restrictions being placed on Mr Y’s contact with her. They say the removal of Mr Y’s contact with F was not justified or proportionate.
2. The Council has investigated the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, but they are unhappy with the outcome.
3. Mrs X and Mr Y say the matter has caused them distress, financial loss and has had a negative impact on F.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I spoke to Mrs X about the complaint and considered information both she and Mr Y provided.
11. I considered information from the Council including the stage 2 investigation report, the stage 3 panel report and the relevant adjudication letters.
12. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The statutory complaints procedure

13. 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.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. The statutory children’s 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 children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
20. 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.

Section 47 Enquiries

21. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
22. If a council considers a child is at risk of significant harm, it will hold an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). An ICPC is a meeting which focuses on the needs of the child or children in question and where evidence of the risk to children can be gathered and shared. It may decide a child protection plan is needed. If so, review conferences will be held to see what progress has been made and what further action, if any, is necessary.

Child arrangement order

23. A child arrangement order is an order from the Court which details the arrangements for a child, including where the child will live and how they will spend time with each parent. Such an order made by the Court is legally binding on the parents of the child.
24. An interim child arrangements order is a temporary order that is put in place whilst the court is making its final decisions about enforcing a permanent child arrangements order.

What happened

Background

25. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
26. Mr Y has a daughter, F, who during the period of this complaint was of primary school age. Mr Y and F’s mother, Ms Z, are separated. Mrs G is Mr Y’s mother and grandmother to F.
27. In 2019 the court granted a child arrangement order for a 50/50 shared care arrangement of F between Mr Y and Ms Z.
28. During 2020 the Council’s Early Help service became involved with the family after a number of safeguarding referrals. These were counter allegations from both Mr Y and Ms Z, as well as the maternal family about F’s care.
29. In early 2022 the Council carried out a Section 47 investigation and held an ICPC. The ICPC was attended by organisations involved with the family and concluded F was at risk of significant harm. F was made subject to a Child Protection Plan and Mr Y’s contact with F became supervised under that plan.
30. Mr Y and Ms Z both made separate applications to vary the Child Arrangement Order in 2022. In September 2022 the court ordered that F remain living with Ms Z with Mr Y spending time with F under supervision of the Council as it saw fit.

The complaint

31. Mrs G complained to the Council on behalf of Mr Y initially in June 2022. The overriding complaint was that the Council has failed in its duty of care to F and demonstrated bias against Mr Y which ultimately meant his contact with F was severely restricted.
32. The Council delayed progressing the complaint and so she complained to us. We told the Council to respond to the complaint without further delay which it agreed to do and paid Mrs G £200 to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Stage 2 investigation

33. The Council issued its stage 1 complaint response in December 2022. Unhappy with the response, Mrs G escalated it to stage 2. The investigating officer (IO) issued their report at the end of March 2023 and investigated 17 points of complaint. These included:
• the Council failed to safeguard F by disregarding safeguarding concerns raised about Ms Z;
• the Council failed to recognise a history of unfounded allegations from Ms Z against Mr Y;
• the Section 47 was flawed as it failed to include Mr Y in discussions or observe F in his care. Mrs G claimed the Council failed to meet the test of significant harm in removing F from Mr Y’s care;
• the Council failed to take account of evidence from Mrs G;
• the ICPC was flawed as it did not give Mr Y sufficient notice and he was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing;
• there were numerous changes of social workers with inadequate handovers; and
• Council officers demonstrated bias and against Mr Y and failed to recognise the emotional harm caused to him around the supervised contact arrangements.
34. The IO upheld two complaints which included delays in the complaints process and that the Council failed to take account of evidence provided by Mrs G. It partially upheld three complaints including that the Council failed to observe Mr Y with F, failed to historically investigate concerns about the maternal grandmother and that there had been inconsistent handovers when social workers left the case. The IO found however that even if the Council had not been at fault in those areas, it would have still restricted Mr Y’s contact with F. The IO did not uphold any of the other complaints.
35. The IO made a recommendation for the Council to monitor and oversee the allocation of stage one complaints to prevent delays. They also recommended the Council have better oversight of allocated social workers and those that leave cases should carry out formal handover meetings.
36. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair and thorough investigation of the complaints raised.
37. The stage two adjudication officer wrote to Mrs G in April 2023 and agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. The stage two process took 20 working days longer than allowed.

Stage 3 independent panel

38. Mrs G and Mr Y were unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council to escalate the matter to a stage three panel in April 2023. Mrs G said the IO had not interviewed relevant officers and said the Council had not demonstrated that F was at significant harm with Mr Y. The stage three panel met at the start of August 2023, 66 working days after the request. Mrs G attended the panel meeting with a supporter. Mr Y did not attend.
39. The panel said the stage two investigation was properly conducted and the IO had considered all relevant case files and documentation and had made sufficient efforts to interview all relevant officers.
40. The panel found the stage two conclusions were fair and reasonable. It agreed with all of the of the stage two conclusions except for one complaint. The panel changed one of the partially upheld complaints to fully upheld in that social workers should have observed F in Mr Y’s care. Had it done so it would have contributed to the assessments the Council carried out. The panel noted the ICPC’s decision that F was at risk of significant harm was not made by the Council alone because ICPC’s are multi-disciplinary.
41. The panel recommended the Council apologise for the upheld elements of the complaint.
42. The Council wrote to Mrs G with its stage three adjudication letter in September 2023. The adjudication officer confirmed the Council accepted the panel’s findings and recommendation. The Council wrote to Mr Y a few days later and apologised for the upheld elements of the complaint.
43. Mrs G and Mr Y remained unhappy and complained to us.

Mrs G’s complaint to us

44. Mrs G remained concerned about the Council’s handling of the case and the removal of Mr Y’s contact which she says he did not consent to. Mrs G said the Council replied on evidence and allegations against Mr Y which were factually incorrect and maintained it acted with bias throughout. Mrs G said the Council accepted allegations against Mr Y as fact and did not address her or his ongoing concerns about Ms Z. She also said the Council refused to allow Mr Y to attend the panel meeting.
45. Since complaining to us, Mr Y said the court has held a fact finding hearing about this matter. The courts findings show the allegations from Ms Z against Mr Y were not proven and some of Mr Y’s allegations against Ms Z were also not proven. The court found no justification for Mr Y’s time with F to be supervised any longer and noted Ms Z should consider that finding. The matter is to proceed to a final welfare hearing at a later date.

The Council’s response to us

46. The Council maintained that the statutory procedure provided an accurate outcome. Since the conclusion of the case it said it has sent reminders to relevant staff to ensure complaints are dealt with within timescales. It now has a new structure of staff in place to prevent unnecessary delays in the future.
47. In November 2023 the Council reminded all relevant managers who oversee Section 47 investigations of the requirement to involve all parents and to ensure where necessary that children are seen and observed with both parents.
48. With regards to allowing Mr Y at the panel meeting the Council provided emails showing Mrs G was given the option of either bringing Mr Y or her supported, but not both.

My findings

49. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
50. The stage two investigation and stage three panel review were properly conducted, albeit there were delays at each stage. Both stages took longer than the statutory timescales allowed and I have made a recommendation below to remedy the frustration this caused. However, the IO reviewed and considered case records, met with Mrs G and Mr Y, and carried out interviews with relevant officers. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. The stage three panel independently considered Mrs G’s concerns and changed one of the findings to upheld. There was no fault in the how the Council considered the complaints so I accept the findings.
51. The complaints process identified some areas of fault. The Council has already carried out relevant service improvements however it has not offered Mr Y a personal remedy. The failure to observe him with F as part of its investigations and the poor quality handovers between social workers caused him distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council was at fault for failing to make a suitable remedy for that injustice.
52. I acknowledge Mrs G and Mr Y disagree with the findings and conclusions of the stage two investigation. However, the main injustice throughout this case remains about Mr Y’s restricted contact with F. The issue of contact has been through and is still going through court. It is the court who made recommendations about supervising Mr Y’s contact with F. I also note that all of Mrs G’s and Mr Y’s arguments about the allegations against Mr Y, which were subject of the stage two investigation, were considered by the court at a recent fact finding hearing. We cannot investigate complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. Either way, the court has found these allegations were unproven, so, further investigation would not achieve anything further.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Pay Mr Y and Mrs G a total of £200 (£100 each) to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s delays in completing both stage two and stage three of the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. Pay Mr Y £150 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to him by the complaints upheld through the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman