Summary: Miss F complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for it to accommodate her son. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the request but there was fault in its complaint handling which caused some time and trouble to Miss F. The Council has agreed to apologise. I have ended my investigation into the way a social worker spoke to Miss F as there is not enough evidence to reach a finding.

The complaint

1. Miss F complains about the way the Council dealt with her request for it to accommodate her son, in particular about the way the social worker spoke to her and about how long it took the Council to make a decision. This caused distress and put her and her younger child at risk of harm.

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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Miss F sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
7. Miss F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children in need assessments

8. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, by providing appropriate services for them. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and complete it within 45 working days. The Council calls this a “single assessment”.
9. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan.

Statutory children’s complaint procedure

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At the first stage, councils should respond to the complaint within 10 working days, or 20 working days if the case is complex. (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006.)
11. Complaints about statutory children’s social services functions delivered under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989 should be considered in accordance with the statutory procedure. This includes complaints about section 17 and early help assessments. Parents may complain, amongst other things, about delay in decision making and the attitude or behaviour of staff.
12. The Ombudsman would normally expect the full complaints process to be followed before considering a complaint about it. If both parties agree and the complaint has been upheld, the Ombudsman can deal with the complaint without the third stage. The Statutory Guidance, “Getting the Best from Complaints”, also says that someone can complain to the Ombudsman at any time. We may therefore exercise discretion to investigate in some circumstances.
13. The Council’s corporate complaint procedure is a single stage. The Council aims to respond within 20 working days.

What happened

14. Miss F has two sons, one of whom, J, has health needs and is supported by child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). He has been referred for an autism assessment. In June 2023, Miss F contacted the Council. She said J was being abusive and threatening to her, she was scared and could not manage his behaviour. She had called the police, but J had not been arrested. Miss F said she was at her wits end, with suicidal thoughts, and wanted the Council to accommodate J. In addition, Miss F was being evicted and would have to shortly move to a smaller property where there would not be space for J.
15. A referral was made for a single assessment under section 17. A social worker visited J about two weeks after Miss F’s initial contact. Miss F was concerned that the social worker had told J there were no problems and the Council would not be accommodating him. He had then been abusive to Miss F.
16. A week later, the social worker called Miss F as part of the assessment. She said there had been some miscommunication about her discussion with J, but the Council would not be taking him into care.
17. Miss F made a complaint about the way the social worker had spoken to her. She said the social worker had been insulting, dismissive and had not taken her or J seriously. She had only repeated that J did not meet the criteria for care and had made J feel he was a nuisance.
18. There were some discussions about housing for J as he was unable to move to Miss F’s new property. A local charity found him accommodation.
19. The social worker completed the child and family assessment in August. It found that J was not a child in need, was being supported by CAMHS and the local charity, and had access to his college’s wellbeing service. The case was therefore closed.
20. The Council replied to Miss F’s complaint on 14 August. It said the social worker had not intended for Miss F to feel insulted or dismissed. The Council acknowledged Miss F had been struggling to manage J’s behaviour for a few years without support, so had explored whether a support package was needed before considering taking him into care. The response signposted Miss F to the Ombudsman.
21. Miss F replied on 31 August with questions about her other son. She did not wish to escalate her complaint. Having had no response, Miss F came to the Ombudsman. The Council then replied to her email on 21 November.

My findings

22. In June a social worker called Miss F a week after she initially made contact with the Council due to J’s abusive behaviour. There was then a referral for a single assessment which was completed on 7 August, 43 working days later. Whist I appreciate Miss F had reached a crisis point and it took a couple of weeks for the Council to respond, there was no fault or delay as the assessment was completed within the timescales set by law (45 working days).
23. It is not the Ombudsman's role to decide whether a young person is a child in need or should be accommodated. That is the Council's role. My role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the Council made its decision. Having reviewed the case records and assessment, I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the assessment. I therefore cannot question the outcome that J was not a child in need.
24. Miss F complained about the way the social worker spoke to her. Social Work England is the body that considers a social worker’s fitness to practise and the Ombudsman cannot recommend disciplinary action or consider complaints about personnel matters. I have seen Miss F’s complaint, the case records and the Council’s response to her complaint. However, as there is no independent witness to the conversation, I cannot reach a robust view, even on the balance of probabilities, about the way Miss F was treated or about whether the social worker acted unprofessionally. Nor can I achieve anything further. I therefore intend to use my discretion to end my investigation into this element of the complaint, as set out in paragraph 3 above.
25. I find fault in complaint handling. Miss F’s complaint was about the attitude and behaviour of staff and about a decision being made under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which falls under Part 3 of the Act. The Council should therefore have replied using the statutory children’s complaints procedure. But instead, the Council referred Miss F to the Ombudsman at the end of stage 1. This was fault. I have exercised discretion to investigate as Miss F did not wish to escalate her complaint.
26. There was also delay. The Council did not reply for 41 working days, four weeks after its own corporate complaint policy deadlines and the statutory procedure. There was further delay in the response to Miss F’s queries of 31 August. This has caused some time and trouble to Miss F.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within a month of my final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss F for the time and trouble caused to her by fault in complaint handling and delay in responding to her queries.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman