Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure into her concerns about the Council failing to adequately assess and provide support for her disabled child. The Council investigated the complaint and carried out the recommended actions without fault. However it delayed completing the stage two investigation which was fault. The Council has agreed to pay the £450 offered to Mrs X in its stage two response to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays and upheld complaints.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation into her concerns about the Council failing to adequately assess and provide support for her disabled child.
2. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. However, she was unhappy with the outcome. Mrs X said the Council delayed completing the complaints procedure, failed to follow procedure and Y has received no further support despite the Council upholding her complaint.
3. Mrs X says the matter has caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X 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

Relevant law and guidance

The statutory complaints procedure

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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

18. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
19. 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.

20. 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) 

EHC Plan

21. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

What happened

Background

22. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
23. Mrs X has a child, Y, who is disabled, has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in place.
24. Mrs X approached the Council for support to get Y back into education. She also wanted to have a longer term bespoke service for Y to enable them to take part in community activities without her, to prevent Y from isolation and to give Mrs X breaks.
25. The Council carried out a Child in Need (CIN) assessment in June 2022. It initially identified Y as Child in Need (CIN), but the Council closed this. Y currently receives an Early Help service through the Short Breaks service.

Mrs X’s complaint

26. In early October 2023, Mrs X made a stage one complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Her complaint was as follows:
• The Council did not inform Mrs X of the CIN assessment process when it carried out the assessment in June 2022
• Mrs X did not receive the CIN assessment once the Council completed this
• The Council did not tell Mrs X there would be a document of assessment which delayed her requesting a copy and making her complaint about this
• The Council did not appropriately inform Mrs X of the support Y was entitled to
• Mrs X did not receive a CIN plan and the Council did not hold regular CIN meetings.
• After the social worker left their role, the family was not allocated a new one
• The Council did nothing to help Y reach the outcomes listed in the CIN plan

Stage one investigation

27. In late November 2023, the Council issued a stage one complaint response. The Council partially upheld the complaint and apologised that the service has sometimes fallen short of the standard it would expect. The Council said it needs to further explore Y’s needs to fully explore respite provision. The Council arranged for a social worker to complete a short break assessment to ascertain Y’s respite support needs which took place in December 2023.
28. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two in April 2024. Mrs X said she did not receive the stage one complaint response when it was originally sent in November 2023. She said she only received this when she contacted the Council’s complaint team in April 2024. Mrs X also said the stage one response was wholly inadequate and failed to address or respond to each complaint.

Stage two investigation

29. After Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two in April 2024, the investigating officer (IO) issued their report in November 2024. The IO investigated six points of complaint. These included:
1. The Council made Mrs X aware that a social worker was visiting in June 2022 to carry out a CIN assessment. However, the Council did not give her information around the process, tell her there would be a document of assessment, did not provide a copy of the assessment and did not inform her of the outcomes
2. The CIN process itself was flawed
3. The Council did not replace social workers when they left
4. There has been a lack of support from the relevant service
5. The Council delayed providing necessary information to progress services for Y
6. The complaints handling has not worked as intended
30. Complaint one was upheld as there was no evidence the Council gave Mrs X information about the assessment process, either verbally or in writing. There was also no evidence the Council shared the CIN assessment with Mrs X until October 2023.
31. Complaint two was upheld as the Council did not follow CIN procedures and timescales in place following the CIN assessment.
32. Complaint three was upheld as the initial social worker only had contact with the family in June 2022. There was then no communication from the Council until it allocated a new social worker in September 2022.
33. Complaint four was upheld as there were uncertainties and contradictions around whether Y was a CIN who needed services in 2022. The Council did not agree until May 2024 to fund two hours a week Direct Payment.
34. Complaint five was upheld as there was no evidence that the Council had fully explained to Mrs X about the CIN assessment in 2022 and the short breaks assessment in December 2023. The Council delayed carrying out the assessments. The Council also failed to communicate what was available to Mrs Y, what she could expect from Children’s Services and what processes it was going to take after it completed the assessment.
35. Complaint six was upheld as the stage one complaint response issued in November 2023 did not address Mrs X’s complaint. It should have addressed each of the complaints made and the outcomes requested but it did not.
36. Mrs X’s desired outcomes from the investigation were for the Council to reinstate Y as a CIN because of the complexity of their needs and for the Council to increase the Direct Payments. The IO advised there was no option to just reinstate Y as a CIN. The IO was unable to comment on these desired outcomes further as their role is to investigate processes and this decision making was out of their remit. They advised the adjudicating officer was best placed to address these desired outcomes.
37. The adjudicating officer provided Mrs X with the email address of the team manager. The adjudicating offer said that Mrs X should discuss with them why she believes Y requires regular CIN planning and an increase in direct payments. Following this, the Council would organise a further assessment of needs and risks with the child and their family.
38. The IO made various other recommendations for the Council including:
• Create an action pack for parents on accessing services and key processes
• Audits of files are to include a check that key documents for parents have been sent and were timely
• Ensure good record keeping of all actions taken on a case
• Consider working agreements at the beginning of the process for a CIN assessment
• Reintroduce early resolution to parents concerns which could become complaints through calls and/or meetings
• Ensure that explanations are given for processes
39. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair, thorough and proportionate investigation of the complaints raised and sufficient evidence was gathered to make the findings.
40. The Council wrote to Mrs X with its stage 2 adjudication letter towards the end of November 2024. It accepted the recommendations and agreed with the upheld elements of the complaint. The Council apologised to Mrs X and offered her £450 for the upheld complaints and delays. Mrs X did not accept this payment at the time.
41. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter. The Council advised as the full complaint had been upheld Mrs X had the option to make an early referral to the Ombudsman which she did.

Council’s response to our enquiries

42. The Council said Y is currently supported by the short break review team and their assessed social care needs are being met and their package is stable. The Council said their support is reviewed annually with the most recent review taking place in November 2024. At this meeting, no concerns were raised regarding the level of social care provision.
43. The Council said as noted in the adjudication letter, the officer provided Mrs X with the contact details of the team manager to discuss an increase in direct payments and regular CIN planning. The Council said Mrs X has not contacted the team manager to discuss this.
44. The Council has provided evidence it has carried out the stage two recommendations.

My findings

45. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
46. The stage two investigation was properly conducted, albeit there was a delay of four months at stage two. Mrs X requested her complaint to be considered at stage two in April 2024. The Council had 65 working days to do this and the Council should have issued the stage two response by July 2024 at the latest. This was not issued until November which was fault. The delay caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty.
47. However, the IO reviewed and considered relevant case records as evidence, met with Mrs X virtually and carried out interviews with relevant officers. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. There was no fault in the how the Council considered the complaints so I accept the findings.
48. The complaints process identified six areas of fault. The recommendations at stage two were appropriate to remedy the injustice caused by the upheld complaints. The Council agreed to carry out these actions in November 2024 and they were to be completed by January 2025. The Council met this deadline. The Council also apologised and offered Mrs X £450 in recognition of the delays and upheld complaints.
49. I acknowledge Mrs X is dissatisfied as she said Y has received no further support since the stage two. Mrs X should contact the Council to discuss this if she wants the Council to consider further support. The relevant person’s contact details are set out in the stage two adjudication letter.

Back to top

Action

50. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action:
• Pay Mrs X the £450 it offered her to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in carrying out the stage two investigation and the upheld complaints.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. 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