Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her concerns about her son’s, Y’s transition to adult services. She said there were delays in the complaint handling; that the Council did not fully uphold a complaint about reasonable adjustments, and that the recommendations following the investigation were not measurable. She is also unclear how the Council calculated the offered financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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, including the statutory timeframes.
6. Mrs X complained to the Council after it failed to respond to her request for an assessment for Y, to support his transition to adult services. The Council issued two responses at stage one of the statutory complaints procedure, before passing her complaint to stage two.
7. At stage two, the Council appointed an Independent Person (IP) and Investigating Officer (IO). At this point, Mrs X also complained the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her.
8. The IO fully upheld Mrs X’s complaints around the transition arrangements for Y. The IO said the Council’s communication with Mrs X was poor, that it provided incorrect information around the transition assessment, and there was a lack of clarity around different services roles.
9. The IO partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint around reasonable adjustments. It found the Council did have a system in place for recording her requested adjustments but human error, or specefic circumstances meant these were not always followed. The IO found there was scope for improvement in both areas of the Council’s practice.
10. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said it would refer the IOs recommendations to its Quality and Assurance Team for further review. The Council also offered Mrs X £750 for the poor service provided to Y, and for the time and trouble in her pursuing her complaint.
11. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage three. She was unhappy her complaint about reasonable adjustments had not been fully upheld and that she was unclear on the recommendations agreed.
12. There was a delay in the Council arranging the stage three panel because of illness. When it did meet, the Panel did not change the findings from stage three. It did set out learning for the Council to improve its practice. The Council wrote to Mrs X and confirmed what work it was completing towards the agreed outcomes. It also met with Mrs X to discuss her feedback into complaint handling. It repeated its offer of £750 remedy.
13. Where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. I have reviewed the complaints correspondence and am satisfied Mrs X’s complaints were considered thoroughly at both stages.
14. There was an overall delay of about 17 weeks in the complaint handling. We would usually recommend a remedy of around £200 for that delay. There was also fault in the Council’s communication with Mrs X around the transition assessment and in ensuring it met her reasonable adjustments. My view is a symbolic payment of up to £500 for both these faults is proportionate and in line with our guidance on remedies. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council’s offer of £750 remedies the injustice caused.
15. Although not time specific, the Council has agreed to take forward learning from Mrs X’s complaints as it develops its practice. The Council has also met with Mrs X further. We could not add further to the actions the Council has already agreed to take.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman