Summary: Miss C complained about the conclusions the Council reached in respect of her complaint about the lack of support and other failings by the Council when she looked after her grandchildren. We found the Council delayed in considering the complaint through the statutory complaints procedure but consider it has recognised the delay and offered a reasonable payment to remedy the fault. We have not found any further fault and so we have not re-investigated the substantive issues.

The complaint

1. Miss C complained that Buckinghamshire Council (the Council) failed to properly consider her complaint about the actions of the Council when she looked after her grandchildren. She said the lack of support and other failings caused the arrangement to breakdown. She has been caused significant distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, and the Council. Miss C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
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

What I found

Statutory Children’s Complaints process

6. 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.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

The Ombudsman’s role

12. 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.
13. 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.

What happened

14. Miss C started looking after her grandchildren in 2020. She complained to the Council in November 2022 that the social worker was trying to pressurise Miss C to engage in mediation with her daughter when Miss C was very clear she did not wish to do so.
15. The Council responded to her complaint at stage one of the statutory complaints procedure. It partly upheld her complaint: It apologised for not sharing the contact plan with her and for wrongly telling the court that it had done so. It explained that it was standard social work practice to offer mediation to rebuild relationships as it was in the best interests of the children.
16. Miss C was unhappy with the response. She said the Council had not taken responsibility for the arrangements breaking down and had not answered her complaint properly. The Council said it would do a further stage one response.
17. By 20 January 2023 the Council had not sent a further response, so Miss C escalated the complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints process. The Council appointed an IO and IP on 18 February 2023 who met with Miss C on 22 February 2023. The statement of complaint was agreed on 14 March 2023.
18. The IO was unable to start the investigation until August 2023 because the Council did not send them the redacted case files until then. The IP and IO conducted officer interviews over the next month and then encountered a further delay in trying to interview an officer who had left the Council. They issued the stage two investigation report on 17 November 2023.
19. Out of thirteen heads of complaint, the report upheld seven, partly upheld four and did not uphold two. It recommended that the Council:
• considers steps it could take to facilitate contact with Miss C and the wider family if the children wished to do so;
• ensures long term carers and kinship carers are included in decisions and communicated with properly so they did not feel excluded; and
• considers recompense for the failings identified and for the complaint delays.
20. The Council sent its adjudication response to Miss C on 5 December 2023. It disagreed with some of the IO’s and IP’s conclusions, upholding four complaints, partially upholding two and not upholding seven. The Council did not agree it was responsible for the breakdown of the placement, but it did accept that there were lessons to be learned in respect of the support it provided to carers.
21. It agreed that:
• it would explore steps to facilitate contact;
• it is essential that all those involved in a child’s life are included in decision-making and other processes; and
• it would make symbolic payments of £500 for distress and inconvenience and £300 for the seven month delay in the complaints process.
22. Miss C remained dissatisfied with the outcome and escalated her complaint to stage three of the statutory process. The Review Panel was held on 12 January 2024. It concluded that eight complaints should be upheld, two partly upheld and three not upheld. Miss C said during the stage three panel hearing that she considered the recompense was an insult and the Council should take responsibility for the breakdown of the placement.
23. The Council sent its response to Miss C on 23 February 2023, agreeing with the findings and confirming the offer of £800.
24. Miss C then complained to us.

Analysis

25. The Council has recognised it delayed in considering the complaint through the statutory complaints procedure. It should have completed the process in six months but took around 13. It offered £300 for the frustration and distress this caused to Miss C. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and I consider it is a reasonable way of addressing this part of the complaint.
26. Beyond the delay, I did not identify any fault in the way the Council dealt with the complaint: it carefully considered all parts of Miss C’s complaint, examining the case records and interviewing available officers. The stage two investigation report was detailed and thorough. It provided reasons for its conclusions on each part of the complaint, address Miss C’s desired outcomes and made recommendations to put matters right.
27. The Council ‘s adjudication changed the findings, upholding fewer complaints but then the Review Panel reached its final view upholding one more complaint than the stage two investigation. The Review Panel hearing gave Miss C the opportunity to state her case and its report gave detailed reasons for its findings. The Review Panel did not agree that the Council was responsible for the breakdown of the placement or for Miss C not being a Special Guardian or for putting her home up for sale. However, it agreed the symbolic payment of £500 was appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication, lack of support, high turnover of staff and failure to include her in some decisions. I consider this was a reasoned and coherent response to the complaint and the offer of payment is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
28. As I have not identified any fault in the way the Council considered the substantive issues in the complaint, I am not going to re-examine them here.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation as I have not found fault in the decision-making process, beyond delay for which it has offered a reasonable payment.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman