Summary: We found fault with the Council’s early referral to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This fault caused the complainant (Miss X) injustice by her missing out on the review of her complaint by an independent panel and by delaying the resolution of her complaint. The Council has agreed to send a written apology to Miss X and make a symbolic payment to recognise Miss X’s distress.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to:
• Carry out the actions specified at each level of the complaint;
• Carry out stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure, referring her instead to the Ombudsman service;
• Interview the Council’s staff with the critical involvement in Miss X’s case about whom she had complained;
• Explain the process.
2. Miss X says the Council’s failings caused her upset and she felt unsupported. She was confused about the children’s services actions and the way the Council handled her complaint.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information and documents she provided.
7. I reviewed the documents provided by the Council.
8. 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

Legal and administrative background

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services:
• The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond;
• 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 investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request;
• 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 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
10. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ (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 complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

11. In the third week of July 2023 Miss X complained about the children’s services actions regarding her child (M). In its response from the beginning of September the Council explained why it took certain actions but did not clarify whether Miss X’s complaint was upheld or dismissed. The Council said it would within 28 days:
• Remind all social workers of the importance to share consistent information with the service users;
• Ensure the children’s services’ assessments and interventions are clearly explained;
• Carry out a risk assessment in respect of contact between M and Miss X’s partner.
12. A few days later Miss X asked for her complaint to be considered at stage two. She said the Council failed to act upon its commitments and the lack of communication and updates continued. Miss X said the Council had failed to address her concerns about certain members of its staff.
13. The Council carried out the stage two investigation for which an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person prepared their reports. The Council sent its Adjudication letter to Miss X in the second week of December 2023. The actions agreed by the Council included:
• A review of Miss X’s case to ensure all necessary steps to safeguard M have been taken;
• A team manager’s telephone conversation with Miss X to apologise for the Council’s failure to complete the actions identified by the Council at the stage one investigation;
• A time of trouble payment of £50 to recognise Miss X had to complain to get clarity on the processes and chase up completion of the stage one actions.
14. Two days after the Council’s Adjudication letter Miss X said she was not happy with the Investigating Officer’s report and wanted her complaint to be escalated. Miss X said the Investigating Officer failed to understand her concerns and interview members of the Council’s staff whose actions caused her to complain. Miss X said the Council had failed to do what it had undertaken in stages one and two. She indicated she would need to complain to the Ombudsman but had to go through the children’s statutory complaint process first.
15. Responding to Miss X’s request the Council proposed an early referral of her complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Council said this approach would be justified as Miss X received a robust report, clear adjudication and all her significant complaints relating to the service delivery had been upheld. Miss X’s desired outcomes, the Council said, had been met. It was suggested that a stage three review panel would have little value. The Council advised Miss X had 20 days to respond whether she agreed to an early referral. No response within this time would result in closing the case.
16. Miss X replied she did not agree with the Council that all her desired outcomes had been met and was not happy with the investigation at both stages and the remedies offered. She said: “you are telling me that a stage three would have little value, therefore I will go to the Ombudsman”. As the Council found Miss X’s email confusing, it asked her to clarify her position.
17. In her response Miss X used some phrases the Council found offensive and it warned her if this continued it would not consider her complaint.
18. Miss X said she did not think her complaint was properly investigated. She said: “as you said, going to a stage three panel would not help then that leaves me no other option but to do that”. The Council interpreted this as Miss X not wanting to progress to stage three. Miss X also noted the Council could have had a point about the comments the Council found offensive.
19. Miss X contacted us at the beginning of January 2024.
20. During a telephone call Miss X told me that after receiving the Council’s Adjudication letter she had remained unhappy with the Council’s investigation of her complaint and had wished for it to be considered further. The Council suggested to her that nothing could have been achieved by looking at it at stage three. All the Council’s involvement with Miss X ended before Christmas 2023.
21. In its comments to my draft decision the Council clarified it had always been happy to organise stage three for Miss X’s complaint. The Council said Miss X had made it clear she ultimately wanted to take her complaint to the Ombudsman. It would be remiss of the Council not to advise Miss X of the option of an early referral.

Analysis

22. The Annex three of the Guidance specifies conditions for a referral of the complaint considered at stages one and two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman without completing stage three. This is called an early referral and is acceptable only when:
• Stage two delivered a very robust report and a complete adjudication;
• All complaints have been upheld;
• The Council is providing a clear action plan for delivery;
• The Council agrees to meet the majority or all of the desired outcomes presented by the complainant;
• The complainant must agree to an early referral.
23. Review of the correspondence between the Council and Miss X following the Council’s Adjudication letter shows that Miss X remained unhappy about the way the stage two investigation had been carried out and its outcomes. She queried robustness of the investigation and asked the Council to escalate her complaint. The Council decided Miss X’s complaint fulfilled the criteria for an early referral and suggested it to Miss X.
24. The correspondence from mid-December 2023 supports Miss X’s claims she felt under pressure to accept the Council’s suggestion of an early referral. Twice during the email exchanges with the Council Miss X stated she was accepting an early referral because the Council had suggested stage three would have little value.
25. Although the Council considered the tone of some of Miss X’s comments unacceptable and issued her with the warning, it took no further action under its ‘Management of Unreasonable Contact and Customer Behaviour’ procedure.
26. The Council’s failure to pass Miss X’s complaint to stage three was fault as the Council failed to address Miss X’s concerns about the robustness of the stage two investigation. Miss X pointed out the Investigating Officer did not interview the most critical members of the Council’s staff. Without addressing this issue the Council decided the investigation was robust which, in its view, merited an early referral to the Ombudsman. This is wrong.
27. I accept there was some confusion in Miss X’s correspondence with the Council caused in some part by her regular mentioning of our services. Nevertheless it was clear Miss X remained dissatisfied and wished her complaint to be taken further. In two of the messages sent to the Council Miss X explained the reason why she would agree for an early referral was because the Council had suggested stage three would be of little value. The default option should have been to take Miss X’s complaint to stage three rather than to refer it early to our services.
28. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss X. She missed out on having her complaint reviewed by an independent panel. The Council’s fault also caused a delay in resolving the outstanding issues of Miss X’s complaint.
29. The Council told me it had already made arrangements for stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure for Miss X’s complaint. The review panel meeting has already taken place.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council within four weeks of my final decision complete the following:
• Send a written apology to Miss X for the injustice caused to her;
• Pay Miss X £100 for the distress caused by the Council’s fault. This is in addition to £50 offered by the Council for Miss X’s time and trouble when pursuing her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I uphold Miss X’s complaint. I found fault with the Council’s early referral to the Ombudsman. This fault caused Miss X injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman