Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly carry out a child and family assessment and provide support about direct payments. She also complained there were failings in the Council’s complaint-handling and how it dealt with her Subject Access Request (SAR). The Council was at fault. There were delays by the Council in its handling of Mrs B’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure, and it delayed actioning a recommendation following the stage two investigation. Because of this, Mrs B suffered distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains her son, who I will refer to as C, has been failed by the Council due to its failure to properly carry out a child and family assessment and provide help and support to her about how to use C’s direct payments. She complains there were failings in how the Council considered her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure, and it has not remedied her complaint. She also says there were failings in how the Council dealt with a Subject Access Request (SAR) she raised with it, and in the way it responded to her complaint about it.
2. As a result of the Council’s actions, Mrs B says she has suffered distress which has impacted her physical and mental health. She also says C’s needs are not met, which has placed extra demands on her and her husband.
3. Mrs B would like the Council to take accountability for not supporting her with C’s direct payments, and grant C the direct payment funds he has not been able to use. She would also like the Council to give her a financial remedy, and a factual response about what happened during the process of her SAR.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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)
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 have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated matters in this case from late April 2023, when Mrs B raised her stage one complaint to the Council, to late October 2024 when the Council sent Mrs B its stage three complaint response. I reference matters outside these dates for context.
9. I have investigated Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
10. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaints about:
• The Council’s failure to properly carry out a child and family assessment and provide support about how to use direct payments. As outlined in paragraph 19, this is a substantive matter which has already been appropriately considered through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. As such, we will not reinvestigate the matter.
• The Council’s handling of her SAR and its subsequent complaint response about it. This is because the Council has given Mrs B the unredacted notes as advised to do by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and an explanation and an apology. The Council staff member involved in the matter has also since left the Council. A further investigation of this complaint would not achieve a worthwhile or different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

13. 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.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.

Children’s statutory complaint procedure – no reinvestigation if the procedure is complete and not flawed

19. 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, we would not normally re-investigate it.
20. 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.

Child in Need

21. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
22. 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.

Back to top

What happened

23. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
24. In late April 2023, Mrs B raised a complaint with the Council. She complained the Council had distorted written assessments to underplay her family situation and C’s condition. She told it she wanted compensation for years of maladministration by the Council and the lack of service provided to her by its Disabled Children’s Service. She also told the Council she wanted it to reinstate the personal assistant element of C’s care package, with clear guidelines about how the family could use direct payments in a flexible way.
25. In late July 2023, the Council spoke to Mrs B and she told it she did not want the Council to consider her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. She instead wanted a response from the Council leader. The Council told Mrs B it had passed her complaint to the relevant officer to investigate, and she would get a response from the Council leader. A couple of days later, the Council advised Mrs B it would consider her complaint through the complaint procedure and acknowledged it as a stage one complaint.
26. In late August 2023, the Council sent Mrs B its stage one complaint response. It told her:
• the last child and family assessment was detailed and balanced;
• the Council had faced challenges gathering an accurate picture of C’s needs due to Mrs B declining information to be shared by professionals and declining home visits. It told her the Council needed to carry out a fresh child and family assessment for C to have a support package, and to contact it if she would like to engage with this; and
• Mrs B’s management of C’s direct payment account had led to misspent funds and substantial reclaims. It told her the Council had offered advice and support by email and meetings, which she had declined. As there had been no indication from Mrs B about how the payments could be used to benefit C, the reclaim had been passed to the relevant team to support her repaying the funds.
27. Around the same time, Mrs B raised a stage two complaint with the Council. She told the Council it had delayed responding to her stage one complaint and it had failed to address the issues she had raised. The Council acknowledged Mrs B’s stage two complaint.
28. In early January 2024, the Council contacted Mrs B to apologise for the delay in its stage two investigation and advised this was due to a significant backlog of complaints.
29. In mid-March 2024, the stage two IO and IP reports were completed. The Council sent Mrs B its stage two complaint response a couple of weeks later. It agreed with the recommendations made by the IO, and told Mrs B it would be taking the following action:
• Ensuring updated consent is recorded on C’s record, and asking the relevant team to carry out a new child and family assessment; and
• Reclaiming unspent direct payments but would be happy to consider reimbursement of reasonable costs of activities which support C’s care package agreed as a result of reassessment.
30. The Council also apologised to Mrs B and offered £250 to her in recognition of its complaint-handling delays.
31. In mid-April 2024, Mrs B sent requests to the Council to escalate her complaint to stage three. At the end of the month, the Council apologised to Mrs B and explained there was a delay in it acknowledging her stage three complaint as her emails had been diverted to the Council’s junk mailbox. The Council also asked Mrs B to set out her reasons why she was dissatisfied with its stage two response as a requirement of the children’s statutory complaint procedure, so it could start the stage three process.
32. Mrs B contacted her MP about the Council’s delays, and in mid-May 2024, the MP told the Council Mrs B had already made her dissatisfaction with its stage two response clear, and the Council was delaying the process by asking Mrs B to confirm details of this. The Council contacted Mrs B a week later and informed her the children’s statutory complaint procedure is underpinned by government legislation which the Council is required to follow. It said it would be happy to consider her stage three complaint request once she had sent the Council her reasons for dissatisfaction with the stage two response.
33. In early June 2024, Mrs B told her MP she was dissatisfied with the Council’s stage two response because:
• she felt it was clear all the relevant information was not disclosed during the stage two investigation and she wished to share this with the stage three panel;
• there were complaint points which had not been mentioned in the investigation and remain unresolved; and
• she was not in agreement with the Council’s outcomes and its offer of £250.
34. The Council says Mrs B’s MP sent the above to the Council’s leader in early June 2024, but the as Parliament had been dissolved in the period prior to the General Election, there were restrictions on communications to and from incumbent MPs.
35. In mid-July 2024, the Council started the stage three process. The Council says this is when the Children’s Complaints Team received Mrs B’s reasons for requesting a stage three complaint in an email from her.
36. In late July 2024, the Council told Mrs B the stage three panel would be held on 8 August 2024. Mrs B told the Council she would not be able to attend on this date as she would be on holiday, and mid to late September 2024 would also not be suitable as C would be in hospital. She also asked if the panel could be held in-person rather than online. A few days later, Mrs B asked the Council to ensure the panel received a copy of her original complaint letter and the stage two investigation report, and if the panel could be held outside of the summer school holiday.
37. At the end of July 2024, the Council told Mrs B the panel would be held on 20 September 2024 to avoid school holidays. C would be in hospital on this date. A week later, the Council apologised to Mrs B for the oversight and told her the panel would instead be held on 16 September 2024.
38. In late August 2024, Mrs B told the Council she still wished to attend the panel in-person, and asked if the Council could provide transport arrangements for her to attend. A couple of weeks later, Mrs B told the Council she could no longer attend the panel on 16 September 2024 as C needed further treatment. The Council rearranged the panel for 11 October 2024, and told Mrs B it would be a hybrid panel, meaning attendees could attend either in-person, or online. The Council also told Mrs B it would be willing to contribute towards transport costs so she could attend the panel in-person as she requested.
39. In late September 2024, Mrs B told the Council she and her husband were declining the invitation to attend the panel on 11 October 2024 as they did not want a hybrid panel and asked the Council if it could be rearranged. The Council told Mrs B to avoid further delay, the panel insisted the hybrid panel go ahead on the planned date. It also told her if she and her husband were unable to attend the panel, they could submit their representation to it in writing. Mrs B asked the Council who would be attending the panel meeting, and the Council told her the participants remained the same as those listed in the panel papers which it circulated the previous month. It told her the only exception was the Council’s representative, as the initial planned Council representative was unable to attend.
40. On 11 October 2024, the stage three panel was held. The panel decision letter was sent to Mrs B a week later. It advised her the panel had not found any outcome to be different from those in the stage two investigation, and it made recommendations to the Council as further resolution to Mrs B’s complaints. It said Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her SAR had been appropriately handled through the relevant complaint procedure, but it recommended the Council give a further explanation to Mrs B about the matter. The panel supported an updated assessment being carried out by the Council to understand C’s current needs, and recommended the Council send Mrs B minutes of the last CIN meeting as this had not yet been actioned following the stage two investigation.
41. In late October 2024, the Council sent its stage three complaint response to Mrs B. It told her it had reviewed the findings of the stage two investigation and stage three panel, and agreed with the conclusions and no further evidence was presented to change the outcome found at stage two. The Council apologised to Mrs B for its identified failings, particularly its complaint-handling delays and poor communication. It also gave Mrs B an explanation about the SAR matter which the stage three panel had recommended; enclosed the minutes of the last CIN meeting; and said it had asked for the updated child and family assessment to be completed as soon as possible, with parental input.
42. A week later, the Council sent a letter to Mrs B offering a child and family assessment. It told her it had been a significant amount of time since the service had been able to assess C and it would not be able to continue support by way of a care package without Mrs B’s consent and engagement. The Council told Mrs B if it did not hear from her within two weeks, C would be closed to the service.
43. In mid-December 2024, the Council ceased C’s care package as Mrs B did not consent to a child and family assessment. It sent Mrs B details of how she could refer to the service in future if she wished to do so.

Back to top

Analysis

44. I have found no flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel. As such, I have not investigated the substantive matters of Mrs B’s complaint as detailed above. My consideration of Mrs B’s complaint has therefore focussed on:
• whether the Council has carried out the process without delay;
• whether the Council properly considered the IO’s findings and recommendations;
• if the agreed recommendations remedy Mrs B’s injustice; and
• if the Council has carried out those recommendations without delay.
45. The Council has acknowledged, and it is clear from the documentation, there have been significant delays in this case. Mrs B complained to the Council on 24 April 2023. The statutory timeframe for a stage one response to be sent to a complainant under the children’s statutory complaint procedure is a maximum of 20 working days. The Council did not do this. It sent its stage one complaint response to Mrs B on 23 August 2023, three months later than it should have been. This delay was fault, which caused avoidable distress and frustration to Mrs B.
46. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me Mrs B’s request to raise her concerns outside of the children’s statutory complaint procedure and to instead be considered directly by the Council leader caused the Council some confusion. When Mrs B raised her concerns with the Council, it initially told her it had passed them on to the relevant officer to investigate, and she would get a response from the Council leader. The Council later told her that her concerns would be considered through the children’s statutory complaint procedure, as this was a requirement. As such, the Council should not have initially advised Mrs B her concerns would be considered outside of this procedure, and I consider this contributed to the delay at stage one.
47. Mrs B complained to the Council at stage two on 24 August 2023. The law says stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure should take no more than 65 working days. The Council did not abide to this timeframe. It sent its stage two complaint response to Mrs B on 28 March 2024, four months later than it should have been. This delay was fault, which caused further distress and frustration to Mrs B.
48. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me there were stage two delays due to unforeseen and significant staff absence within its Children’s Complaints Team. The Council offered Mrs B £250 following the stage two investigation in recognition of the delays, which she declined. In the circumstances of this case, I do not consider this to be sufficient to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to Mrs B by the Council’s delays at stage one and stage two. The Council has agreed to make a payment below to reflect this.
49. Mrs B sent her first stage three request to the Council on 13 April 2023. Statutory guidance says the stage three panel should be held within 30 working days of the request. The stage three panel was held on 11 October 2024, roughly four and a half months after it should have been. However, this was not due to fault by the Council. While there was an initial delay in it acknowledging Mrs B’s stage three complaint due to her emails being diverted to the Council’s junk mailbox, the Council acted promptly once it recognised this and asked for her reasons for her stage three request immediately. Following this, the Council did not receive Mrs B’s reasons for her stage three request until 17 July 2024. So, I cannot say the Council was at fault for this part of delay, and Mrs B could have directly given the information to the Council it had asked for to progress her complaint to stage three, rather than doing this through her MP.
50. After this, it appears there were delays following the Council’s attempts to reschedule the stage three panel to accommodate Mrs B’s requests. The Council initially scheduled the panel to be held on 8 August 2024. So, the delay in the stage three panel being held was not due to fault by the Council. After the stage three panel hearing, the law says the Council should send its stage three response to the complainant within 20 working days. The Council sent this to Mrs B within the required timeframe, on 28 October 2024.
51. Mrs B complained the Council’s adjudicating officer who was originally planned to attend the stage three panel was replaced with a member of staff she had complained about. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me the original adjudicating officer could no longer attend, and it had informed Mrs B of the change in early October 2024, which it says Mrs B did not object to at the time, or before, during or after the stage three panel. The Council told me it was of the view it was reasonable to continue with this arrangement as there was no decision-making involved, and the alternative would be to reschedule the stage three panel again which would add further delay. Statutory guidance says where the adjudicating officer has accepted the IO’s findings at stage two – which they had – it is usually acceptable to delegate this responsibility. Also, the new person attending did not change the outcome of the investigation, so in any case, the outcome would have been the same had the original adjudicating officer attended the panel. So, the Council was not at fault for this.
52. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. The Council gave apologies to Mrs B for its identified failings, and an explanation for the SAR matter in a timely manner. I have therefore not recommended the Council apologise again to Mrs B. However, a recommendation from the stage two investigation outlined the Council should send Mrs B a copy of the minutes from the last CIN meeting. The Council actioned this on 28 October 2024, seven months after stage two was completed in March 2024. The Council’s delay in actioning this recommendation was fault, which caused distress and frustration to Mrs B.
53. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it has been unable to action the recommendations of obtaining updated consent from Mrs B and carrying out an updated child and family assessment to consider C’s needs. The Council says it has agreed to take these actions but has been unable to progress them as Mrs B has not engaged with it. I have seen evidence of the Council’s offer to Mrs B of an updated assessment, which the Council says she did not respond to. Mrs B disputes this, but the Council is willing to action this, so I consider she should contact the Council again with the instruction given if she would like the Council to do so. We would then expect the Council to complete this in a timely manner.
54. The Council has highlighted to us it has held complaint training with relevant staff and issued a staff briefing to remind staff of the importance of adhering to complaint procedures and timescales. It also told us it now has oversight from senior staff with all children’s social care complaints. I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations. The Council has also apologised to Mrs B for its failings and delays in its complaint-handling, so I have not asked it to apologise to Mrs B.
55. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
56. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

57. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs B by the fault I have identified, within four weeks, the Council will pay Mrs B:
• £350 to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to her by the Council’s complaint-handling delays. This has been calculated at £50 per month of delay, and recognises the three-month delay at stage one and four-month delay at stage two.
• £100 to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to her by the Council’s seven-month delay in actioning the stage two recommendation detailed in paragraph 52.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

59. I uphold Mrs B complaint and 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