Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council investigated her complaint under the statutory complaints process. She complains the Council failed to consider its actions and the impact this had on her family. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint at stage two. The Council has agreed to reinvestigate Miss X’s complaint at stage two and pay Miss X a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not fully explain its reasoning for a section 17 and section 47 investigation. Miss X says the Council never fully explained how the case escalated or why the Council made the decision to undertake the section 47.
2. Miss X complains she was pressured into seeking a non-molestation order and leaving her home as part of the investigations, and when she complied her actions were questioned.
3. Miss X complains the Council has discriminated against her children and her family because of their heritage and background.
4. Miss X complains the Council’s final complaint response does not recognise the impact caused to her and her family by the Council’s maladministration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 2974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered Miss X’s complaint and information she provided. I also considered information from the Council.
8. I considered comments from Miss X and the Council on a draft of my decision.
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

The statutory complaint procedure for children’s complaints

10. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to have a formal complaints procedure to deal primarily with complaints by and on behalf of children and young people.
11. The process has a three-stage structure. At stage one, a council responds to a complaint. If a complainant is not satisfied, they can ask for a stage two investigation. Stage two investigations are carried out by an independent investigator and overseen by an independent person.
12. If complainants are unhappy with the outcome of the Stage two investigation, they can request a stage three review, conducted by a panel.
13. A council senior manager, acting as Adjudicating Officer, should consider the independent investigator’s (and if suitable the review panel’s) reports, identify the council’s response, decision on each complaint point and action to be taken.
14. The procedure also sets out timescales for completing the process.
15. Not all complaints about children’s services must go through the statutory complaints procedure. Complaints brought by parents concerning their own rights rather than those of their children, can use the Council’s normal corporate complaints procedure. However, once a council has opted to use the statutory complaints procedure, even if it does not have to, it should complete the process.

The purpose of Review Panels

16. Statutory Guidance “Getting the Best from Complaints” sets out how councils should follow the statutory complaints procedure.
17. The guidance explained Review Panels should not generally reinvestigate complaints or consider any substantially new issues not considered at Stage two. Their purpose was to:

• listen to all parties;
• consider the adequacy of the Stage two investigation;
• get any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint;
• focus on achieving resolution for the complainant by addressing their defined complaints and outcomes;
• reach findings on each of the complaints they review;
• make recommendations providing practical remedies and solutions;
• support local solutions where possible;
• identify injustice where complaints are upheld and recommend appropriate redress; and
• recommend service improvements.

Our role

18. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we do not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide an independent, detailed investigation and analysis of each the concerns raised.
19. This means it is not necessary for us to carry out any further investigation of the complaint issues, unless we find there were serious and fundamental flaws in the way they were investigated and considered under the statutory complaint procedure.
20. Our role is usually limited to looking at whether the complaint issues were properly considered, and suitable remedies recommended and implemented.

What happened

21. In October 2020 the Council received a referral from the police about a domestic abuse incident between Miss X and her ex-partner.
22. Upon receiving the referral, the Council contacted Miss X to start a child and family assessment to safeguard Miss X’s children.
23. Miss X at first refused the assessment as she understood it to be voluntary. The Council decided to carry out section 47 investigation, also known as a child protection investigation, which was not voluntary. It also held a strategy meeting regarding the concerns raised about the incident.
24. Miss X later agreed for the child and family assessment to take place. At the end of the assessment, the Council recommended the case remain open under a Child in Need plan (CIN plan).
25. Miss X complained to the Council. She complained

• The Council did not have enough evidence to open a section 47 investigation.
• The Council did not explain the section 47 investigation properly to Miss X
• The Council held the section 47 interview with the children present and without understanding of the children’s needs
• The case did not meet the threshold for a CIN plan and the Council placed undue pressure on Miss X to comply with the CIN plan.
• The Council had discriminated against Miss X’s children because of their heritage and background.

26. The Council began considering Miss X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
27. It appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) to investigate Miss X’s complaint, with an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation.
28. The IO completed their investigation and issued their report.
29. The IP confirmed they was satisfied with the way the IO had completed their investigation and reached their findings.
30. Miss X was not satisfied with all the IO’s findings. She felt the report had not robustly considered the evidence that she had put forward and the concerns she raised. She asked for the IO’s investigation and findings to be reviewed at a panel hearing
31. The Council arranged for a stage three investigation. The investigation found included a review of the IO and IP’s reports. It considered the documents from the IP and IO, as well as interviewed the officers relevant to Miss X’s complaint.
32. The Council arranged a panel hearing. Miss X presented the issues she wanted the panel to consider.
33. The stage three panel disagreed with some of the findings from the stage two investigation. For most of the areas of Miss X’s complaints, it ruled that it could not make findings. This was mainly due to a lack of clarity in information or it not being provided in the stage two, or that officers were not available to be interviewed.
34. The panel upheld that it was likely Miss X’s children had been exposed to some of the interview conducted with Miss X.
35. The stage three investigation recommended the Council

• Review how information about section 47 investigations are conveyed to those undergoing the investigations.
• Place a note on the family file with Miss X and her children’s views on the matter.
• Ensure that families are given the time to process information about child protection procedures, and consideration should be given to the production of accessible written information.

36. Miss X remained unhappy with the Councils response and felt the actions did not account for the distress caused to her family. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

37. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation. Therefore, I have considered whether the stage two investigation and stage three panel have been suitably conducted.

Evidence for a Section 47 investigation

38. Part of Miss X’s complaint is that the Council had inadequate evidence to escalate from a CIN investigation to a section 47 investigation.
39. The Councils stage three investigation said it could not make a finding on this part of Miss X’s complaint as the stage two did not clarify the process or provide comment on how it was completed.
40. I find fault with how the stage two investigation was conducted as it did not seek to clarify or confirm how the process was conducted. This meant that both the stage 2 and stage 3 were unable to make a finding on this part of the complaint.

Section 47 interview with Miss X

41. The stage three investigation upheld that Miss X’s children had likely been exposed to parts of the section 47 interview. It made no finding on whether the social worker had explained the process to Miss X, as this had not properly been considered at stage two.
42. The stage two investigation was flawed because the issues had not been properly considered. This meant that the panel were not able to make a finding.

Reasonable adjustments for Miss X’s children

43. Part of Miss X’s complaint is the social worker conducting the investigation did not consider her children’s additional needs when communicating with them.
44. The panel said that it could not make a finding on this part of Miss X’s complaint as the social worker no longer worked for the Council.
45. The panel’s role includes the responsibility to

• consider the adequacy of the Stage two investigation;
• get any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint.

46. The stage three did not give consideration as to whether case records could have obtained by the stage two investigation to resolve the complaint.
47. I find fault with the stage two investigation for failing to investigate whether further information could have been obtained to make a finding on this part of the complaint.

Compliance with Child In Need plan

48. Part of Miss X’s complaint is that she felt pressured to comply with the CIN plan, and her actions were later used against her.
49. The stage three panel the stage two had not reasonably questioned officers about the allegation of pressure, and therefore it could not make a finding.
50. As previously outlined, it is the panel’s role to

• consider the adequacy of the Stage two investigation;
• get any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint.

51. The panel identified that officers had not been reasonably questioned about the allegations of pressure.
52. The stage two investigation was not able to demonstrate that it had considered whether other information could be obtained to attempt to resolve the complaint.

Discrimination towards Miss X’s children

53. Miss X complains the Council discriminated against her children for their background and cultural heritage.
54. The stage three panel made no finding on this part of Miss X’s complaint as it had not spoken to officers during the stage two. The Council did not feel it could rely on case notes for this part of the complaint. The panel were concerned the stage two investigation had not spoken to officers.
55. The stage three panel indicated that it acknowledged the stage two was flawed but agreed it could not rely on officers to make a finding on this part of the complaint.
56. I find not fault with how the stage three panel considered this part of the complaint.

Final conclusions

57. It is clear from the stage two records and the stage three outcomes that the stage two investigation was flawed. For several parts of the complaint, the stage two failed to investigate and obtain information which may have led to both the stage two and the stage three making findings on Miss X’s complaint.
58. It is not acceptable that the stage two could make no findings based on the lack of evidence, if it had not sought the evidence or tried to clarify the events.
59. I therefore find fault with the Council for how the stage two investigation was carried out. This caused Mrs X and her children injustice.
60. The Council should recommission a new stage two investigation into Miss X’s complaint. If Miss X is unhappy with the outcome she can request a further stage three panel review. If she remains unhappy after this she can bring her complaint back to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. Within 4 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the fault identified above.
• Pay Miss X £300 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.
• Commission a new stage two investigation. The officers appointed to the stage two should be independent from the complaint and should have had no previous involvement in the stage two or stage three.

62. Within 12 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Share a copy of the decision with those it commissions for the statutory complaints process. This should include communication about lessons learnt and how failing to fully investigate hinders the complaints process.
• Review whether staff need further training about the Council’s responsibility to be proactive about its duty to consider reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Final decision

63. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with how the Council considered parts of Miss X’s complaint during its stage two investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman