Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s actions put her son, Y, at risk when he was accommodated by the Council and it did not safeguard him or his sibling, Z, when it decided to return Y home. The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council will apologise to Ms X and Y, pay them a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration this caused them, and arrange a stage three panel to consider Ms X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council’s actions put her son, Y, at risk when he was accommodated by the Council and it did not safeguard him or his sibling, Z, when it decided to return Y home. Ms X said this put them all at risk of harm. Ms X wanted an explanation of why the Council did not make suitable long-term arrangements for Y and why it did not consider the impact on Z and herself.

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 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)
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)
4. 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

5. I read the documents Ms X sent and discussed the complaint with her on the phone.
6. I considered documents the Council provided.
7. Ms 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 legislation and guidance

Statutory children’s complaint procedure

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

Section 20

15. 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.

16. 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)

What happened

17. Y lived at home with his mother, Ms X, and his sibling, Z. Y has special educational needs which may make him vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. In 2020, amid concerns for Y’s behaviour and risk of exploitation, the Council took Y into care under a section 20 order, agreed with Ms X.
18. In 2022, Y turned 18. While in discussions with Y, Ms X and involved professionals about an appropriate placement for Y, the Council dropped all of Y’s belongings off at Ms X’s home, and Y return home a short while later.
19. Ms X complained to the Council on her and Y’s behalf in September 2023. She complained about the Council’s actions to safeguard her and Y and plan for his future when he was approaching 18. Ms X said the Council did not safeguard Y or his sibling Z when it decided to return Y home while he was subject to a section 20 order. Ms X wanted an explanation of why suitable long-term arrangements were not made for Y and why the impact on Z was not taken into account.
20. The Council did not respond within its published timescale of 10 working days to Ms X’s complaint. In October it contacted Ms X and offered to move straight to a stage two investigation of her complaint. Ms X accepted.
21. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to consider Ms X’s complaint.
22. Ms X agreed her statement of complaint with the IO in December 2023. Ms X had six points of complaint. The outcome she wanted was for Y to have accommodation which met his needs and in an area he was not at risk of exploitation or abuse.
23. The IO completed the stage two investigation at the beginning of March 2024. It partially upheld two complaints about how the Council planned for Y’s transition from children’s services to adult services. It upheld four complaints that the Council had failed to safeguard Y and Z, failed to consider the impact on Ms X and delayed responding to her complaint. The report did not comment on the impact of the upheld and partially upheld complaints on Y, Z or Ms X or make any recommendations about how the Council should remedy any injustice caused to them. It did make some recommendations for service improvement.
24. The adjudicating officer wrote to Ms X at the beginning of April 2024. They said they agreed with the IO’s report and recommendations. The Council set out the service improvements it intended to make as a result of the complaint. The adjudicating officer said the Council agreed that finding appropriate accommodation for Y should be a priority in its planning for him. It did not set out how it intended to achieve that outcome.
25. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X asked for a stage three panel to consider her complaint on 12 April 2024. Ms X said she wanted the panel to consider the complaints that were partially upheld. Ms X also raised some factual inaccuracies in the IO’s report.
26. The Council arranged a stage three panel for 21 May 2024. Shortly before the date of the panel meeting the Council informed Ms X that one of the professionals involved was unable to attend the meeting and so it would have to cancel. It told Ms X she had two options: to reconvene the panel or approach the Ombudsman. It said it could not suggest a new date and it would take it outside the statutory timescales. It told Ms X she could approach the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with its handling of the complaint.
27. Ms X said she was unsure she would be able to attend a future meeting and would approach the Ombudsman. Ms X complained to us immediately.

My findings

28. Ms X complained about the accommodation and safeguarding of her children Y and Z. The Council considered the matter at stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
29. 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, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns. The Council has not yet considered Ms X’s complaint at stage three and I have therefore not investigated Ms X’s concerns about the accommodation of Y and safeguarding of Y and Z.
30. The Council told Ms X it needed to cancel the stage three panel due to an unspecified professional being unavailable. The failure to hold the meeting on the agreed date was not fault. However, the Council should have endeavoured to reconvene the meeting as soon as possible. It should have sufficient documentation and contingency planning in place to allow another person to act in the unavailable professional’s place. The Council’s failure to reconvene the stage three panel meeting without delay is fault and caused Ms X and Y frustration and delay.
31. The Council’s suggestion for Ms X to approach the Ombudsman was misleading and was fault which caused Ms X frustration. At the time the Council suggested Ms X approach us, it was still within the statutory timescales to complete the stage three panel meeting. In addition the case did not meet the criteria for an early referral to us because the stage two investigation did not uphold all the significant complaints and, while the Council agreed with Ms X’s desired outcome for Y to be appropriately accommodated and safeguarded, it did not identify a clear action plan to deliver the outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
• write to Ms X and Y and apologise for the frustration caused to them and pay them a symbolic amount of £100 each to recognise the same. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended; and
• arrange a stage three panel meeting to consider Ms X’s complaint, with a replacement professional if the original person remains unavailable.
33. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman