Summary: We have not investigated Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s social care involvement with her family in early 2021 because it is unlikely we could achieve the outcomes Mrs Y seeks.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained about the Council’s involvement with her family including:
• the actions of its children’s social care team in March 2021;
• its poor record keeping;
• its response to her subject access request; and
• failing to consider her complaints properly.
2. Mrs Y says the matters caused her distress and frustration.
3. Mrs Y wants the Council to complete a full investigation into her concerns and for individual Council officers to be held accountable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
8. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
9. 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

10. I considered the complaint correspondence and comments submitted by Mrs Y. I also discussed the complaint with her.
11. I consulted the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction.
12. I contacted the Council to clarify some key dates.
13. Mrs Y 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

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

14. We may receive complaints about matters where significant time has elapsed since the alleged fault occurred. In such cases, an investigation is likely to be hindered by the passage of time. We will always consider each complaint on its merits and take account of the individual circumstances. However, our Guidance on Jurisdiction says we should be cautious about starting an investigation into complaints about older matters for the following reasons.
• The further away in time an investigation takes place from the events complained about, the more difficult it may be to establish the facts with reasonable confidence. In older cases we are less likely to be able to gather sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement. Even if some evidence is available, we need to ensure it is reliable and provides a full picture.
• We cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. It is therefore likely to be more difficult to reach a firm and fair conclusion on whether there was fault.
• It is more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy, given the length of time that has passed, the difficulty in establishing causality over longer time periods, and changes in the situation of any parties involved.
15. The guidance suggests a presumption against exercising discretion unless there are clear and compelling reasons that satisfy both of the following two tests:
• there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision; and
• the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner

Our analysis

16. The Council became involved in the life of Miss Y and her young children in 2021. Shortly after the onset of the Council’s involvement, Miss Y sadly died.
17. After Miss Y’s death, Mrs Y wrote to the Council to express her concerns. The Council decided in April 2021 that it would not be appropriate to investigate Mrs Y’s complaint until the ongoing police investigation and Coroner’s inquest had concluded.
18. Mrs Y continued to contact the Council with her concerns. A senior officer met with Mrs Y in May 2022 to discuss. Mrs Y subsequently submitted an information request to the Council on 23 November 2022. She asked the Council to provide all information it held about her in relation to the Council’s involvement with Miss Y and Mrs Y’s grandchildren.
19. The Council responded to Mrs Y’s request on 3 May 2023. Following this, Mrs Y made another request on 26 June 2023 and 2 July 2023 which the Council responded to on 3 July 2023.
20. The Council completed further information searches on 9 July 2023 and identified additional disclosable information which it made available to Mrs Y on 19 December 2023 and 15 January 2024.
21. In the meantime, Mrs Y submitted another complaint to the Council in November 2023 about events dating back to early 2021 when Miss Y died.
22. Mrs Y made another information request which the Council responded to on 21 March 2024. The Council has since explained the delay in responding to Mrs Y’s requests was due to the volume of information and other caseloads.
23. Mrs Y complained again to the Council in March 2024. The Council provided its final response to the complaint in April 2024. I understand Mrs Y has since made further complaints which the Council has declined to consider.
24. Upon receipt of the Council’s final complaint response, Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman in May 2024. In her complaint form Mrs Y explained her injustice and desired outcomes which I will summarise below.
• The Council’s actions have negatively impacted on Mrs Y’s grandchildren who have experienced significant emotional trauma since the loss of their mother, Miss Y.
• Mrs Y is currently unable to have contact with her grandchildren.
• The Council should fully investigate her complaint.
• Officers found to be working below the expected standards should take ownership of their actions.
• For the Council to ensure the implementation of policies and procedures to prevent another unnecessary death.
• To ensure Council officers treat service users fairly and with dignity and respect, especially when breaking bad news to a family member.
25. After reviewing Mrs Y’s complaint alongside our Guidance on Jurisdiction, I have used our general discretion to discontinue our investigation for the following reasons.

• After considering Mrs Y’s comments, I consider it would not have been reasonable for her to complain to the Ombudsman sooner. This is because the Council initially declined to investigate Mrs Y’s complaint and then delayed in responding to her information request. Mrs Y has explained she could only complain to us once she had received the Council’s full response. Although Mrs Y waited 18 months from the death of Miss Y to request her files, I consider she had good reason for the lapse in time due to her significant grief and trauma.
• However, as outlined in paragraph 14 of this statement, for us to investigate there also needs to be a prospect of reaching a sound view, on the balance of probabilities, about whether the Council’s actions were impacted by fault. The Council has confirmed that some of the key social workers and managers involved with Miss Y’s case in 2021 no longer work for the Council and so it has not been possible to ask them about Mrs Y’s complaint. Therefore, I am not confident that we could make a sound and evidence-based decision that professional judgments made in 2021 were administratively flawed.
• Although we accept there is good reason for Mrs Y to bring a late complaint to us, we have to also consider the remedy she is hoping to achieve and whether an Ombudsman investigation could produce a meaningful outcome. In the complaint form to us Mrs Y expressed the injustice she says her grandchildren have experienced. We note the Council has not accepted a complaint on behalf of the children. I am aware Mrs Y does not currently have contact with her grandchildren and so may not be the correct adult to bring a complaint on their behalf. Therefore, we could not recommend any changes in relation to the care of the children and Mrs Y’s contact with them.
• The Council has also confirmed its view that Mrs Y is not the appropriate person to receive information about Miss Y because she is not the representative for Miss Y’s estate.
• Mrs Y has expressed her view that Miss Y’s death was preventable and therefore unnecessary. The Ombudsman is not the correct body to make findings about the cause of a person’s death; this is irrespective of whether the complainant alleges direct or indirect involvement by the Council. Only the Coroner can make decisions about the cause of unexpected, suspicious or sudden death. I understand that the circumstances around Miss Y’s death are subject to an ongoing Inquest.
• Mrs Y raises concerns about the Council’s handling of her complaint. In our view, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are not investigating the substantive issue. I have not investigated a standalone complaint about complaint handling. Furthermore, any concerns Mrs Y has about the professional conduct of individual social workers would be a matter for the relevant professional body: Social Work England. Any concerns about the handling of her information under GDPR – including data breaches and requests for rectification - would be for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs Y’s complaint for the reasons outlined in this statement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman