Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly consider his complaint about children’s services through all three stages of the statutory complaints procedure, provide a remedy for his injustice or put in place any service improvements to prevent problems recurring. We found some fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice with a payment of £300 and make some service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Cornwall Council (the Council) failed to properly or fairly consider his complaint about children’s services through all three stages of the statutory complaints procedure, failed to provide a remedy for the injustice caused to him by the upheld complaints, failed to put in place any service improvements to prevent the problems recurring or ensure he has received requested documents from child in need meetings. This has caused Mr B and the family 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)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. 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

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.

Early referrals to the LGSCO

16. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. 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, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

Section 17 duties

17. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
18. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

19. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

What happened

20. Mr B’s son C was a child in need. In September 2023 a new social worker (SW) started working with the family and promised to meet twice weekly with C. Mr B complained to SW’s manager (SWM) on several occasions between October and December 2023 that the meetings were not taking place, but did not receive a response. In February 2024 Mr B said that SW indicated her caseload was too high to achieve the promised meeting frequency and Mr B requested a new worker, but the Council did not allocate one. Mr B also said SW gave inaccurate advice about education and the Council delayed in allocating a worker regarding a different service.

Stage one complaint

21. In early February 2024 Mr B complained to the Council about these matters. The Council responded at stage one of the statutory complaints procedure on 4 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint that C had received a poor service as there was a clear record services working with C and the family from May 2023.
22. It acknowledged that SW had initially committed to two visits a week but at the end of November 2024 reduced this to one weekly visit at school. This became difficult as C was not attending school very much by this point. The Council partially upheld this complaint as SW should not have committed to unrealistic plans and should inform families if visits are cancelled.
23. It upheld the complaint about SWM’s failure to respond directly to Mr B about his complaints about SW, but not the complaint about the education advice as that was not the responsibility of the social work service. It concluded the referral for the new worker was done correctly and did not uphold this complaint.

Stage two complaint

24. Mr B escalated his complaint on 4 March 2024. His main concerns were SW’s incorrect advice about education, SWM ignoring his complaints about SW and the Council failing to provide a new SW.
25. The Council appointed an IO and an IP and they agreed a statement of complaint with Mr B on 22 June 2024. The IO and IP interviewed officers in July and completed their report on 27 July 2024.
26. In respect of the complaint about SW, they concluded that the Council made considerable efforts to work with C which was made difficult on occasion by C not wishing to see SW or him not being at school and did not uphold the complaint that he received a poor service. They concluded SW had not said she had an unachievable caseload, but felt it was possible high caseloads were mentioned at the meeting. They did not uphold this complaint. They did however agree that the Council should not be committing to unrealistic visiting plans and partially upheld this part of the complaint.
27. The IO upheld the complaint about SWM not responding to Mr B’s complaints about SW. They did not uphold the majority of the complaint about the delay in arranging a worker from another service, although much of the conclusions were made on a balance of probabilities due to a lack of clear case-recording. The IO did partially uphold the issue of miscommunication about the date of a meeting and the fact that Mr B did not attend because he had not been made aware of it rather than chose not to attend as the Council had stated in the stage one response.
28. The IO did not uphold the complaint about the failure to allocate a new SW. In respect of the advice given by SW about C’s education they partially upheld the complaint on the grounds that SW should have made clear the information she gave came from the school and was not her view. The IO did not uphold the complaint about the failure to post hard copies of correspondence following meetings. They were satisfied that the Council had sent them on two occasions. The IO made no recommendations.
29. The Council sent its adjudication letter to Mr B on 6 September 2024. It agreed with the outcome of the stage two investigation and report.

Request for stage three review panel

30. Mr B tried to escalate his complaint to stage three on 26 September 2024. He did not agree the complaints process has been fairly and impartially executed. He felt the IO had been biased towards the accounts given by the Council. for example:
• The IO sided with SW’s version of events without evidence to support their view regarding the comment about high caseloads. He wanted a recording of meeting to confirm what was actually said.
• Although the complaint about SWM’s failure to respond to him was upheld he repeated it was not acceptable. He said SWM should not have attempted to talk to SW about it and disciplinary action should be taken.
• In respect of the communication about the meeting he said the IO had missed the point and reached conclusions not based on any evidence.
• In respect of SW’s advice about education coming from the school, he said this was not evident from the emails and was a deliberate act of hiding evidence which should be investigated further.
• He had not received the hard copy documents and thinks the Council fabricated the records that they had been sent.
31. Mr B also raised some new issues and further concerns. He wanted action taken so the faults would not be repeated.
32. On 10 October 2024 the Council said a stage three review panel would not change the outcome of the investigation, it was not the function of the review panel to reinvestigate the complaints, and it would not investigate any new complaints not investigated at stage two. It would investigate new matters as a new complaint but directed Mr B to our office regarding the existing complaints.
33. Mr B complained to us. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it would issue a reminder to staff at its regular learning briefings about the need to record all communication with families on the case management system and to confirm the details of arranged meetings. It said its existing capability and performance procedure contained a process for managers to follow when multiple concerns were raised about social workers. It said minutes of child in need meetings were not produced but the key issues and actions were captured in the plan documents which Mr B received after each meeting. It said it would send Mr B the documents from all seven meetings held between July 2023 and November 2024.
34. It acknowledged the stage two investigation was delayed and that this was due to a shortage of provision. It has since then appointed additional IPs and offered Mr B £300 for the distress he was caused.

Analysis

Early referral

35. Our guidance states that cases should only be referred to us early if the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.
36. In Mr B’s case not all the complaints were upheld, a significant amount were concluded on the basis of a balance of probability due to a lack of clear evidence from the case records and there were no recommendations for improvements or action to meet Mr B’s desired outcome.
37. I do not consider the criteria were met to refer the case to us and the Council should have arranged a stage three review panel to complete its consideration of Mr B’s complaints.
38. I accept the guidance says that a stage three panel should not reinvestigate the complaints, but it could have considered Mr B’s belief the process was biased in respect of the complaints which were not, or only partially, upheld, consider whether any recommendations were appropriate particularly to ensure concerns about SW are responded to and ensure case recording is complete. The failure to do so was fault.

Delay

39. The Council has accepted the stage two took longer than it should have done (approximately 20 weeks rather than 13) due to a shortage of staff. This was fault which caused Mr B injustice. I welcome the Council’s offer of £300 to recognise that injustice.

Back to top

Action

40. While I welcome the offer of a payment for the delay and the agreement to remind staff of the need to record all communications with families and confirm meeting arrangements, I considered further action was appropriate to address the fault found in the statutory complaints process.
41. I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision, (in addition to the agreed actions above):
• develops a process (beyond what is contained in its capability and performance procedure) for acknowledging complaints from service users about social workers and responding to them within a reasonable period of time.
42. The Council says its existing complaints process is sufficient and no new process is required. I consider it was not implemented this case as Mr B’s complaints about SW were not acknowledged or responded to by SWM. I agree a new process is not necessary but I would expect the Council takes steps to implement its existing policy properly in the future.
43. I also recommended the Council reminds staff dealing with statutory children’s complaints of the criteria for early referral, and the need to consider whether redress for injustice or recommendations for service improvements are appropriate. The Council has agreed to this and says it will be asking staff to attend our new workshops for complaints relating to children’s services.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman