Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take action to protect her child. She says this meant her and her child missed intervention and support. We find fault with the Council for failing to identify suitable remedies for Miss X during the statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy to Miss X for distress.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains:

• the Council has failed to properly consider and investigate her complaint under its statutory complaints process.
• The Council did not take the suitable action when her son needed intervention and support.
• the Council has failed to recognise and remedy the fault and injustice to her and her son.

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 considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I invited Miss X and the Council to comment on a draft of my decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

The statutory children’s complaints process

7. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. This includes decisions by the local authority to initiate care and supervision orders and the process can consider the quality of court reports.
8. 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.
9. At stage two, 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.
10. 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.
11. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.

Stage one complaint

13. Miss X contacted the Council in October 2021. In her first complaint she said

• She had concerns about the wellbeing of her child, Child Y, who was living with his father.
• She had had to leave the property due to domestic abuse but the child remained there, and the Council was not properly considering the domestic abuse and its impact on Child Y.
• The Council was not properly responding to or considering her concerns about his wellbeing. The Council had not followed the agreed Child In Need (CIN) plan and as a result, she was not seeing Child Y. Miss X felt the Council should have escalated the case to child protection.
• She felt Child Y was experiencing significant harm because of the Council’s lack of action and there was little improvement for him.

14. The Council met with Miss X to discuss her concerns. In the meeting, it agreed

• The Council would provide with regular updates from the social worker about the current child in need plan, and Child Y’s wishes and feelings.
• The Council will ensure it includes Miss X in meetings, and the social worker to discuss with further contact with Miss X with Child Y.
• For the social worker to explore relationships with extended family for Child Y
• Miss X will seek legal advice about reoccupying the house where her ex-partner lived.
• The Council will offer the children support via domestic abuse services, and potentially counselling for Child Y.
• The social worker will carry out direct work with Child Y.
• The Council would arrange a review of the CIN plan.

Stage two complaint

15. Miss X remained unhappy and felt the Council did not complete the actions it agreed. The Council then closed the case when Miss X felt it should have been escalated. She approached the Ombudsman for advice. We recommended the Council progress the complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
16. The Council appointed an Independent Person (IP) and Independent Officer (IO) in March 2022.
17. The IO found partially upheld the social worker did not thoroughly investigate the referral and there had been occasions where the Council did not ensure the CIN plan was followed.
18. The IO upheld the threshold for child protection had been met, and the Council should have taken emergency action.
19. The IO did not uphold that

• the Council had not considered domestic abuse,
• the Council had breached Miss X’s confidentiality,
• the social worker had failed to act on concerns,
• there had been no improvement for Child Y and
• Miss X had not been consulted about case closure.

20. The IP reviewed the IO’s findings and agreed with them in full.
21. The Council issued its adjudication letter to Miss X in May 2022. It upheld the findings of the IP and IO, and explained to Miss X that it could not achieve the result she was hoping, which was for Child Y to be returned to her. However, as Child Y had returned to her temporarily, the Council agreed to hold a strategy meeting to review what further support could be offered.

First complaint to the Ombudsman

22. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in May 2023. She said the Council had delayed completing the Children’s statutory complaints procedure for her complaint. We upheld the complaint, and the Council agreed to arrange the stage three panel and pay Miss X a financial remedy for the delay.

Stage three review panel

23. The Council held the stage three review panel in August 2023.
24. The panel overturned some of the findings from the stage two. It changed

• The complaint about the concerns and referral not being properly considered from partially upheld to fully upheld.
• The complaint about the CIN plan not being followed changed from partially upheld to fully upheld.
• The complaint about failure to explore domestic abuse to no findings, due to lack of evidence and information.

25. The panel recommended;

• Compulsory domestic abuse training for all staff.
• The Council address the issues identified about escalation in management practices.
• The Council should offer further support to Child Y.

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate the substantive parts of the complaint where we are satisfied the Council has properly considered the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints process.
27. The stage three review panel identified issues with the stage two investigation. This included the failure to identify and properly analyse the information to make an informed decision. This resulted in some of the findings of the stage two being overturned.
28. I am satisfied the stage three panel has explained its reasoning for overturning certain findings and identified the flaws in the stage two investigation. I see no reason to reinvestigate the substantive parts of Miss X’s complaint as I am satisfied the complaint issues have been properly considered through the complaints process.
29. However, I have investigated whether the Council properly considered the impact of the identified issues.
30. Part of Miss X’s complaint was the Council did not carry out direct work with Child Y about domestic abuse. The stage three panel made no finding on this part of the complaint due to no evidence of the Council completing this work.
31. Poor record keeping and a failure to be able to produce the evidence it was relying on was fault by the Council. The panel was entitled to make the decision of ‘No Finding’ based on the lack of evidence. However, the Council should have recognised its own faults by failing to have these records. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council for the documents reviewed by the panel to make its decision. I agree with the panel there is a lack of evidence to confirm if this work took place, despite the Council agreeing it would complete it.
32. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty about whether the Council completed the agreed work. The Council should also have identified a service improvement remedy to address this issue.
33. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council to explain how it had carried out the service improvement remedies recommended by the stage three panel. I am satisfied the Council has been able to show that it carried out the service improvements recommended.
34. I also asked the Council why it had not considered personal remedies for Miss X and Child Y. The Council told me that despite upholding parts of the complaint, it did not feel a personal remedy was suitable for Child Y as they had not been placed at risk. It also felt Miss X had not been caused personal injustice and therefore a personal remedy was not suitable. It said it had already provided a remedy for the delay in the complaints process.
35. The Council’s rationale for this decision is flawed. It upheld or partially upheld several points of Miss X’s complaint. While I accept that for some parts of the complaint, this was down to third party actions, it remains there was fault by the Council. This will have caused Miss X distress and uncertainty about what would have happened if not for the fault by the Council. I am therefore recommending the Council provide Miss X with an apology and a personal remedy.
36. The Council has showed that it carried out further investigations and offered Child Y support after the complaint ended. It did not identify Child Y as being at risk due to the fault by the Council. It said Child Y was of the age and capacity where they had made the decision about the interaction they wished to have. I agree with the Council that despite it recognising some of the work was not carried out with Child Y, Child Y was clear in their communications that they wished for limited involvement. Therefore they have not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

37. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the fault found in the stage three and during our investigation.
• Pay Miss X £300 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.
• Remind staff of the importance of accurate recording keeping and the important role this plays in decision making during casework, but also during complaint handling.

38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman