Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about its care of him when he was a child. The Council was at fault. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and pay him £250. The Council will also complete a stage two response to Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about its care of him when he was a child. Mr X said this meant his concerns were not being taken seriously or acted upon.

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 have considered:
• all the information Mr X’s representative, Ms Y, provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
6. Mr 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

7. Relevant law and guidance
8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. This includes complaints relating to children in a council’s care and support for children who are in need.
9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
12. If a complainant makes their complaint orally, the council must prepare a statement of complaint before beginning the stage two investigation. Guidance issued by the Ombudsman notes there is no requirement to prepare a statement of complaint where a complainant makes their complaint in writing, but that it may be good practice where a written complaint lacks clarity.
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. In late May 2023, an advocacy company acting on Mr X’s behalf complained to the Council. The complaint was over 30 pages long and detailed.
16. The complaint noted Mr X felt the Council had failed to meet many of the responsibilities and duties it had in relation to him as a child. It then listed numerous specific events in Mr X’s past when he was a child in need and under the care of the council. Although the complaint sometimes referred to organisations like the Mr X’s school and the Police, it was focused on the actions of the Council. The complaint set out Mr X’s requested remedy from the Council, which included an apology, compensation for distress and missed payments and policy and procedural changes.
17. The Council decided to begin a stage two investigation without putting Mr X’s complaint through the stage one stage. This was because of the complexity of Mr X’s concerns.
18. The Council assigned an IO and IP to the investigation in mid-June. The IO met with Mr X’s assigned advocate and said they hoped to meet with Mr X soon to clarify the focus of his complaint. In the meantime, the IO sent a summary of Mr X’s complaint.
19. In late July the advocate closed Mr X’s case because he had not been in contact about the complaint.
20. Between August and October 2023, the Council and the advocacy charity communicated about Mr X’s complaint. The Council said much of Mr X’s complaint did not relate to it and without clarification, it could not investigate. The charity disagreed. It said the entire complaint was about the Council and it contained all the necessary information for the Council to begin an investigation.
21. The advocacy charity assigned Mr X a new advocate in October 2023. The advocate told the Council they would ask Mr X if he could make his complaint more concise. The Council said if Mr X would not reduce his complaint, it would not be able to investigate all his concerns.
22. In December 2023, Mr X confirmed he wanted the Council to investigate his complaint as set out in the complaint summary. The Council closed Mr X’s complaint in January 2024.

Findings

23. Statements of complaint are only required where a complaint is made orally. Mr X made his complaint in writing. There was no need for the Council to prepare and agree a statement of complaint with him. The Ombudsman’s guidance notes agreeing a statement is good practice where a complaint lacks clarity. However, I do not consider Mr X’s complaint to be unclear. It relates to the actions of the Council and listed numerous specific events of concern within the framework of the duties and responsibilities the Council had for Mr X. It was therefore inappropriate for the Council to have insisted on a new statement of complaint. This was fault.
24. The law and guidance is clear that councils must investigate complaints which fall under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. If there were aspects of Mr X’s complaint which the Council felt it was unable to investigate, it should have set this out to Mr X and proceeded with investigating the remainder of his complaint without delay. The Council did not do this and instead refused to investigate any of Mr X’s complaint after months of communicating with him and the advocacy charity. This was further fault.
25. The faults set out about caused Mr X avoidable frustration. For a short period of time, Mr X did not engage with the advocacy charity. This caused a small delay. Nonetheless, the Council’s fault caused most of the delay which meant Mr X still does not have a response, and potentially a remedy, to his concerns.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within two weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council will begin a stage two investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The Council will complete the investigation within a maximum of 65 working days of the date it begins the investigation. If the Council feels it cannot investigate parts of Mr X’s complaint, it will set that out to Mr X before beginning the investigation. If Mr X is unhappy with that decision, he may raise it at the stage three panel and can subsequently bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration he felt because of its poor complaints handling. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of that injustice.
28. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman