Summary: The Council failed to properly investigate Mr B’s complaints about his family’s involvement with children’s social care services. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B and start a new stage two statutory complaint investigation without delay. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that there were failings in the way the Council engaged with his family and decided to apply for a Care Order for his two children. He also complains that the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint. Mr B says this has caused him and his family distress and left his complaints unaddressed.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated the way the Council has dealt with Mr B’s complaint, but I have not investigated the substantive issues. This is because they have not yet been properly considered by the Council.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
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)
7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered the documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s Social Care Complaints

9. 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.
10. The guidance details which functions can form the subject of a complaint. It includes:
• an unwelcome or disputed decision;
• concern about the quality or appropriateness of a service;
• attitude or behaviour of staff;
• a decision by a council to initiate care and supervision orders;
• the accuracy or quality of social work information or a social work report which has gone to court.
11. The guidance states that where a complainant has other related complaints that do not fall within the statutory procedure, the council may wish to consider whether there are advantages in accepting these into a single investigation. Councils are encouraged to offer a complete single response where possible.
12. The first stage of the statutory complaints procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
13. 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 investigator (IO) and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 65 working days to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
14. Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as Adjudicating Officer and consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions and recommendations, any report from the IP and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The purpose of adjudication is for the council to consider the reports and identify its response, its decision on each point of complaint, and any action to be taken.
15. 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. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
16. The guidance says once a complaint has entered stage one, the council must ensure the complaint continues to stages two and three if the complainant wishes, apart from in very limited circumstances when the council can make an early referral to the Ombudsman after stage two. 
17. The Council can only make an early referral if stage two has been concluded and it delivered:
• a very robust report;
• a complete adjudication;
• an outcome where all complaints have been upheld (or all significant complaints relating to service delivery in respect of the qualifying individual);

and,

• the council is providing a clear action plan for delivery; and
• the council agrees to meet the majority or all of the desired outcomes presented by the complainant regarding social services functions.
4. A complainant can approach the Ombudsman at any time in the procedure. We will consider the individual circumstances of the complainant before deciding to accept a complaint before the review panel stage has been completed.

Overview

19. In August 2019, Mr B’s two children moved with their mother, Ms X, to the Council’s area. The children were subject to a child protection plan in the area they had moved from.
20. A transfer in child protection conference was convened in December 2019. It was decided that the children should remain subject to a child protection plan.
21. In March 2020, the Council sought legal advice and it was decided that the threshold had been met to initiate care proceedings.
22. The following week, a child protection review conference was held and it was decided the children no longer needed to be subject to a child protection plan and they were stepped down to a child in need plan.
23. The Council applied for a care order in May 2020. Then, in June 2020, it decided to seek an interim supervision order instead of an interim care order.
24. Ms X was the children’s main carer until September 2020, when they went to live with their father, Mr B. The Council says that when it was confirmed that the children were safe and well at Mr B’s home with the additional support he provided, it revised its position. The Council withdrew their application in March 2021. Children’s Services are no longer involved with the family.
25. Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council in June 2021. He complained about the Council’s decision to initiate court proceedings, the actions of its social workers and the information that was provided to the courts.
26. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint but he remained dissatisfied. In September 2021, Mr B asked for his complaint to be investigated under stage two of the complaints procedure.
27. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) in October 2021. Mr B’s complaints were investigated and a stage two report was submitted to the Council in March 2022.
28. In July 2022, the Adjudicating Officer wrote to Mr B with details of the adjudication. She said that she found the conduct of the stage two complaint was fundamentally flawed. She said the investigators did not focus on Mr B’s actual complaint, and appeared to have largely formed views on matters that he did not raise. Mr B was not given a copy of the stage two report.
29. The Adjudicating Officer also told Mr B that his complaints about court processes, Children’s Services role in issuing proceedings and the child protection conferences did not fall within the scope of the complaint investigation process. She referred to the Council’s complaints procedure which states that complaints about the commencement or conduct of legal proceedings should not be the subject of the complaints process, and complaints about child protection case conferences should be dealt with by Haringey Children’s Safeguarding Partnership.
30. The Council offered to consider Mr B’s other complaints at stage three of the statutory complaints procedure and it referred Mr B’s complaints about the child protection case conference to Haringey Children’s Safeguarding Partnership.
31. The Council also offered to make a payment of £650 to Mr B to recognise his frustration and potential distress.
32. Mr B did not accept the Council’s offer and said that he would instead complain to the Ombudsman.
33. The Council then offered to appoint a new IO and IP to investigate Mr B’s complaint again at stage two. Mr B did not accept the Council’s offer.
34. The Council commissioned an independent review of the stage two investigation. Its findings were consistent with the adjudication which found fundamental flaws with the investigation. It found that issues were investigated that fell outside the scope of the investigation, some findings were not consistent with the evidence and some findings were based on insufficient evidence. It also found the presentation of the evidence undermined the overall integrity of the report.

Analysis

Delays

35. The Council delayed completing stage two of the complaints procedure. The whole stage two process, including the adjudication, should be completed 65 working days from the start date. The start date is defined as the date the complainant requests the stage two in writing, or where the complaint was made orally, the date on which the council produces a final written record of the complaint. In this case, Mr B complained in writing on 6 September 2021 and clarified the reasons he wanted to escalate his complaint on 24 September 2021. He received the adjudication letter on 13 July 2022, around 10 months later. This delay was fault.

Adjudication

36. I have considered the adjudication and the independent review which provides a detailed analysis of the stage two report. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that the report was fundamentally flawed.
37. The Adjudicating Officer decided that the Council should not investigate Mr B’s complaint about its decision to initiate care proceedings because the Council’s complaints procedures states that it will not usually investigate complaints about the commencement or conduct of legal proceedings.
38. Mr B’s main complaint was about the Council’s decision to initiate care proceedings despite the child protection conference deciding to step the case down from child protection to child in need. While the Council’s corporate complaints procedure does say that it will not usually investigate complaints about the commencement or conduct of legal proceedings, the statutory complaints procedure specifically includes complaints about a council’s decision to initiate care orders (see paragraph 10). I therefore consider there was fault in the way the Council decided it should not investigate this aspect of Mr B’s complaint.
39. The Council’s corporate complaints procedure also states that complaints about the conduct or operation of a child protection conference are not dealt with through the Council’s complaints procedure and are instead referred to the Haringey Safeguarding Children’s Partnership. The Council should have referred this aspect of Mr B’s complaint to the Partnership from the outset, not after the stage two report had been completed. This was fault.
40. When the Council decided the stage two investigation was fundamentally flawed, it offered to convene a stage three review panel to consider the aspects of Mr B’s complaint which fell within the statutory complaints procedure. I do not consider this was reasonable because it denied Mr B the opportunity to have his complaints properly investigated at stage two of the complaints procedure.
41. The Council later offered to appoint a new IO and IP to investigate Mr B’s complaint at stage two. I consider this was appropriate because it would ensure a proper stage two investigation was carried out.
42. Mr B has not received a proper response to his stage two complaint. There are some aspects of his complaint which the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate, but that can be investigated by the Council. I therefore consider it appropriate for the Council to properly consider Mr B’s complaints at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. He can return to us once the complaints procedure has been completed if he remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Appoint a new IO and IP to investigate Mr B’s complaints at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. The investigation should include Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to initiate care proceedings and his complaint about the accuracy of information presented to the court. The Council should decide whether Mr B’s complaints about the child protection conferences should be referred to Haringey Safeguarding Children Partnership, or if there are advantages to accepting all of Mr B’s complaints into a single investigation.
• Apologise and make a payment of £750 to Mr B to recognise his avoidable distress and the time and trouble he was put to pursuing his complaint.
44. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will review its procedures for dealing with complaints to ensure that, in future, it:
• Decides from the outset whether a complaint should be considered under the statutory complaints procedure or through an alternative procedure.
• Recognises that complaints about decisions to initiate care and supervision orders, and about the accuracy or quality of social work information which has gone to court, do fall within the statutory complaints procedure.
• Does not switch complaint procedures part-way through. If a council accepts a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure it should complete this to the complainant’s satisfaction.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman