Summary: We find no fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s complaint about how it assessed and managed her child’s needs.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly closed her complaint about delays, poor assessments, and safeguarding concerns. She also complained the Council failed to implement recommendations from an earlier complaint investigation.
2. Mrs X said this caused avoidable delay and distress. She said it impacted her mental health and has cost her time, money and energy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. 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 of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer to look into the complaint and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
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.

What happened

11. Mrs X complained to the Council about inadequate assessments of her child (B), about its recommendations, and that it failed to deliver support for the family.
12. The Council accepted that it initially did the wrong assessment for B. It said it did a further assessment. It said it would arrange a meeting with Mrs X.
13. Mrs X asked the Council to progress her complaint to stage two. On the same day, Mrs X complained about one of its staff (Officer G) who wrote the Council’s complaint response and was involved in managing B’s case.
14. The stage two investigation did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. She asked the Council to progress her complaint to stage three.
15. The stage three review panel partially upheld some of Mrs X’s complaint. It recommended the Council:
1. do a new assessment of B;
2. work with Mrs X to reach an agreement on B’s future needs and how to best meet them;
3. help Mrs X if she wanted to put notes on B’s file;
4. apologise for the parts of Mrs X’s complaint the panel upheld and arrange a meeting with Mrs X; and,
5. consider how to raise awareness of children’s, like B’s, needs with staff and signposting staff to the Council’s website.
16. In response, the Council:
1. told Mrs X it would do the new assessment;
2. told Mrs X it would work with her, and asked Mrs X if she thought mediation would be helpful;
3. asked Mrs X to send her notes to a specific email address, and it would put them on B’s file;
4. apologised and told Mrs X to contact a specific officer to arrange a meeting; and,
5. explained how it would train officers and share information.
17. Mrs X asked the Council to respond to her complaint about Officer G.
18. The Council said Mrs X’s complaint was that Officer G, as the responsible officer, had failed to oversee the same issues it had already investigated at stages two and three. And because it had already investigated the issues, it would not investigate again.
19. Mrs X said her complaint was about her concerns about Officer G in their capacity as the responsible officer, and about Officer G’s response to her complaint.
20. The Council said Mrs X could have raised her complaints at stage two and stage three.

Analysis

Closing Mrs X’s complaint

21. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly closed her complaint about Officer G. Mrs X believes the Council should have investigated this complaint because it was separate from her other complaint.
22. The Council told Mrs X it was clear from her emails that her concerns about Officer G stemmed from their complaint response. The Council said it could not do another investigation into issues arising from the complaint it had already considered.
23. Generally, we do not consider the actions of individual officers: we consider the Council’s actions as an organisation. I agree with the Council that Mrs X’s complaint was about Officer G’s individual actions on behalf of the Council. And these actions were part of the Council’s overall actions, which were investigated at stages two and three of the complaints process.
24. I agree with the Council that Mrs X had opportunities to raise these complaints about Officer G at stages two and three.
25. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for closing Mrs X’s complaint about Officer G.

Recommendations from stage two and stage three

26. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare 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.
27. 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 (stage two) and review panel (stage three), and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
28. I have considered the stage two investigation and stage three review panel. I find no flaws that call the findings into question.
29. Mrs X complained the stage three panel’s recommendations did not go far enough.
30. I find that the stage three review panel’s recommendations provided practical remedies and creative solutions, and worked towards a resolution. I therefore find the panel’s recommendations were in line with the guidance. And for that reason, I will not question them.
31. Mrs X complained the Council failed to implement recommendations from this complaint investigation. I have considered how and when the Council completed the recommendations.
32. There were no recommendations at stage two. There were five recommendations at stage three, set out in paragraph 15. I am satisfied the Council implemented all the recommendations without delay. I therefore find no fault.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman