Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not involve him in its assessment of him for contact with his daughter (D) and told him he could not have contact with her. He also says the Council delayed in responding to the statutory complaints process. The Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaint and considered the findings and recommendations of the Panel. It is not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not involve him in its assessment of him for contact with his daughter (D). The Council told Mr X he could not have contact with D and did not explain the reasons for this. He also says the Council delayed in responding to the statutory complaints process. This has caused his health to suffer and destroyed his relationship with D. He would like the Council review its procedures and take disciplinary action against staff so this does not happen to anyone else.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have only considered if the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation. I have not reviewed the investigation. References to the investigation is for background information only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Children Act 1989 and accompanying statutory guidance.
6. Mr X 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

The three-stage statutory complaints process

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. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. If a complainant is unhappy with the result 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
16. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2023. There were six parts to Mr X’s original complaint which the Council dealt with under its three stage statutory complaints process.
17. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2023. There were three remaining parts to his complaint:
• Complaint one (original complaint two): The Council did not allow Mr X to contribute to the contact assessment on him.
• Complaint two (original complaint one): The Council told Mr X he could not have contact with his daughter and failed to provide a reasonable explanation.
• Complaint three (original complaint four): The Council delayed responding at each stage of the complaints process.
18. In the third stage of the complaints process, the Panel upheld complaints two and three. It was inconclusive on complaint one.

Complaint one: The Council did not allow Mr X to contribute to the contact assessment on him.

19. Mr X complained the Council did not involve him in the assessment process. The assessment referred to comments from Mr X. He said these comments were from a private conversation with D’s mother and were out of context.
20. This has been investigated at all three stages of the complaints process.
21. The stage three Panel said the contact assessment refers to discussions with Mr X but there are no social work records of the conversation. The Panel said the Social Worker should have recorded the discussions. Without this, there was no way of knowing whether comments in the assessment were from discussion with Mr X.
22. The Panel also said it was not clear what any assessment may have looked like and whether Mr X knew when and how this was ongoing as there are no records. Mr X reported his discussion with the social worker lasted seven minutes.
23. The Panel could not reach a definite conclusion because of the lack of information and said the evidence was inconclusive. In its stage three response letter, the Council agreed with the Panel and said it was ‘unable to make a finding due to the lack of evidence to support or refute the grounds for complaint.’ The Council agreed with the Panels conclusion and said it was reasonable.
24. The Panel properly considered the available evidence before making a decision which the Council upheld. The Council is not at fault for how it investigated this element of Mr X’s complaint. Even if the Ombudsman was to investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint, due to the lack of evidence, it is unlikely we would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said, and it is unlikely this would lead to a different result for Mr X.

Complaint two: The Council told Mr X he could not have contact with his daughter and failed to provide a reasonable explanation.

25. At stage one and two of the complaints process, this part of Mr X’s complaint was not upheld. This is because there was no evidence the Council told Mr X he could not have contact with his daughter.
26. As part of his stage three submission, Mr X presented an email dated mid-February 2023 from Social Worker A to D’s mother, who sent it to Mr X. The email states Mr X is not to have any contact with his daughter until a full risk assessment has been completed. The email did not provide an explanation or reason. This email was not available at the stage one and two investigations. The stage three panel said the email should have been on the file as it was significant and provided a clear position about contact.
27. Social Worker B contacted Mr X in the middle of March 2023 and clarified the contact arrangements but could not explain why he was not allowed to have contact with his daughter for the previous month as they had not seen the email from Social Worker A.
28. The Stage three Panel upheld Mr X’s complaint. It recommended relevant staff were reminded to be clear in their communication, accurate in case recording and to share their decision.
29. The Council agreed with the Panel’s findings and upheld this part of Mr X’s complaint. It agreed with the Panel’s recommendations and said it would produce a case summary to share with the appropriate services, reminding them of the importance of robust case recording and information sharing.
30. The stage three panel got to the centre of what had happened where the stage one and two investigation did not. This shows the complaints process at each stage looked afresh at the complaint, completed its own thorough investigation and came to a sound conclusion based on the evidence. This is appropriate. The Council properly considered the Panel’s findings, agreed the recommendations and went one step further to take additional action. The Council is not at fault for how it investigated Mr X’s complaint.

Complaint three: The Council failed to comply with the timescale to respond to each stage of the complaints process.

31. Mr X complained to the Council at the beginning of April. The Council’s response was due at the beginning of May, within 20 working days. The letter was dated the end of May and was roughly 20 working days late. The Council apologised in its stage one response. The stage three Panel upheld this element of Mr X’s complaint and the Council reiterated its apology in its stage three response.
32. The Council also delayed in issuing its stage two (five working days) and stage three responses (two working days). The Council has apologised for the delay which is correct.

Summary

33. Mr X’s complaint has been through the three stage statutory complaints process, the Council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the Panel and accepted the recommendations.
34. For the elements of Mr X’s complaint which were upheld by the Panel and accepted by the Council, the Council has apologised. This is correct.
35. In complaining to the Ombudsman, Mr X said he wanted the Council to take corrective action so others did not receive the same experience. The Panel recommended how processes could be improved. The Council accepted this and suggested extra remedies which it said it would cascade to relevant services. This is appropriate and satisfies the remedy Mr X sought.
36. Mr X said he would also like the Council to discipline staff. This did not form part of the Panel’s recommendations and is not something within the Ombudsman’s powers. This is not something I have considered.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation. The Council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the Panel. It is not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman