Summary: Mr X complained about how he and his children were treated by the Council’s children’s social care service. We have found that the Council was at fault for a significant delay in its handling of his complaint. This caused him an injustice, which the Council has already addressed. But we will not conduct a further investigation of Mr X’s complaint. An independent investigation has already found no fault in most of what the Council did. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issue would lead to a different outcome for Mr X. However, the Council will now take steps to eliminate complaint handling delays in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about various ways in which the Council allegedly failed him and his children (who are in the Council’s care).

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 a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
5. Mr 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

6. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
7. Parents of looked-after children can use this procedure to complain about the care and support their children receive.
8. If a complaint has already been through the statutory procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
9. We are not an appeal stage and do not simply add another independent investigation to the previous one as a matter of course. We will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed in a way which disadvantaged the complainant.
10. I have considered the documents from Mr X’s complaint, and I note that:
• All parts of the complaint were considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigator had access to the Council’s records and referred to his consideration of those records where necessary.
• The investigator also interviewed the relevant staff members who still worked for the Council (in line with best practice recommended in the statutory guidance) and clearly referred to those interviews in his consideration of the individual points of complaint.
• An independent panel reviewed the investigator’s findings and agreed with them in full.
• Although Mr X disagrees with the findings of the Council, the independent investigator and the panel, I have not identified anything which obviously undermines those findings to the extent that they may be unreliable.
• The personal remedies and service improvements offered by the Council adequately recognise its failings.
11. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Mr X – so I will not do so.
12. The Council did, however, cause significant delays in answering Mr X’s complaint. It took around a year and a half, and I am satisfied that it was responsible for around 15 and a half months of delay during that period.
13. It is likely that this delay caused Mr X distress. But the Council has already offered him a suitable remedy – a symbolic payment – for this distress. No further personal remedy is justified for Mr X.
14. However, the Council should now take steps to ensure similar complaint handling delays do not happen again.
    
    
    
     

Back to top

Action

15. Within eight weeks, the Council has agreed to write to us, setting out:
• The reasons for the significant delay in its handling of Mr X’s complaint.
• How it will overcome similar difficulties in future (for example, by improving monitoring or commissioning arrangements, if relevant).

Back to top

Decision

16. The Council was at fault. It has already addressed Mr X’s injustice, but it will now take action to improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman