Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained how the Council handled allegations they raised about an incident that took place at their son’s school. They also say the Council failed to comply with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure and the statutory guidance. We find some fault with the way the Council dealt with the allegations Mr and Mrs E raised. The Council apologised to Mr and Mrs E, offered them a suitable financial payment and implemented service improvements. However, the Council was also at fault for its delays during the statutory complaints procedure and for how it responded to the investigating officer’s report. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to implement further service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs E complained how the Council handled allegations they raised about an incident that took place at their son’s school. They say the Council’s investigation was not thorough or comprehensive.
2. Mr and Mrs E also say the Council failed to comply with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure and the statutory guidance.
3. Mr and Mrs E say the Council’s faults have caused severe distress and upset for the whole family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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)
6. 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

7. I considered information from Mr and Mrs E. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Mr and Mrs E 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

Allegations against staff or volunteers

9. Working Together to Safeguard Children August 2018 says councils should have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children.
10. Councils must appoint a local authority designated officer (LADO) to oversee investigations into allegations against people who work with children in their area.
11. The Council’s local safeguarding procedures states the LADO should:

• Receive reports about allegations and to be involved in the management and oversight of individual cases.
• Provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations.
• Liaise with the police and other agencies.
• Monitor the progress of cases to ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible consistent with a thorough and fair process.
• Provide advice and guidance to employers in relation to making referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and regulatory bodies such as Ofsted.

12. If the allegation is not demonstrably false and there is cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, a criminal offence may have been committed against a child or there is a significant safeguarding risk with the organisation the LADO will convene an allegation management meeting. This is a multiagency meeting, chaired by the LADO, to share information, plan actions to safeguard children and address the allegations.
13. If the information indicates possible significant harm to children, Children’s Social Care will consider convening a separate strategy meeting within 24 hours to decide if a child protection enquiry is needed.
14. There are five possible outcomes of allegation investigations:

• Substantiated: there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation.
• False: there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation.
• Malicious: there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive.
• Unfounded: there is no evidence or proper basis which supports the allegation being made, or there is evidence to prove that the allegation is untrue.
• Unsubstantiated: there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation; the term therefore does not imply guilt or innocence.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

15. 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.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
17. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two.
18. At stage two of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
19. 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.
20. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint procedure, 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.

What happened

21. Mrs E contacted her son’s (F) school at the end of 2020 and said she had seen two members of staff roughly handle him.
22. The LADO arranged an allegation management meeting the following day. The school agreed to investigate the matter.
23. Mrs E contacted the LADO a few days later and said she had changed her mind and referred the matter to the police. The school therefore paused its investigation.
24. The police viewed the CCTV footage the school provided the following month. It did not consider the incident met the threshold of a criminal investigation. The LADO told the school to continue its investigation.
25. The school completed its investigation and decided its staff did not use excessive force. The LADO reviewed the investigation report and closed the case with an unsubstantiated outcome. The LADO did not arrange a further allegation management meeting before she closed the case.
26. Mrs E contacted the Council several months later and raised concerns about the LADO’s investigation. The Council decided to review the case.
27. A senior officer contacted Mrs E and asked for further information. The officer reviewed all the information including the CCTV and visited the school. She decided a further allegation review was required as the LADO had not considered a third member of staff that was involved on the day of the incident.
28. The Council held a second allegation management meeting to consider the information from the third member of staff and to complete a review of the original referral. The outcome was that the allegation was unsubstantiated. However, the Council agreed it needed to improve its service.
29. Mr and Mrs E complained to the Council on 19 October 2021. They said it failed to properly investigate the incident and it ignored crucial evidence.
30. The Council responded on 30 November. It said it reviewed all documentation from the school including the CCTV. It reconsidered matters and decided the outcome was still unsubstantiated.
31. Mr and Mrs E referred their complaint to stage two on 2 December.
32. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to the case on 14 January 2022. The Council arranged a meeting with the IO, the IP and Mr and Mrs E on 27 January to agree their complaint.
33. The Council emailed Mrs E on 21 February and said the IO had to withdraw from the case due to poor health. It appointed a new IO two days later.
34. A further meeting took place between the new IO, the IP and Mr and Mrs E on 11 March. Mr and Mrs E agreed a statement of complaint on 29 March. They complained the LADO’s safeguarding investigation into the incident at F’s school was not thorough or comprehensive. They also complained the Council failed to answer their complaint fully at stage one.
35. The IO completed her investigation in mid-June. She found there were gaps in the investigation carried out by the school. The LADO did not identify this even though she had received the transcript of the CCTV footage which mentioned all three members of staff. She said it would have been best practice for the Council to hold a further allegation management meeting before it closed the case. She noted the Council had now changed its procedures to ensure it carries out a thorough reappraisal of all investigations.
36. The IO also concluded the LADO did not consider whether the school had followed its own policies and procedures regarding the physical restraint of children. However, once the senior member of staff became involved, the Council completed a thorough review of the incident and the school’s policy. Therefore, the IO partially upheld Mr and Mrs E’s first complaint.
37. The IO fully upheld Mr and Mrs E’s second complaint on how the Council responded to their complaint at stage one. She noted the officer who dealt with the complaint did not meet with or speak to Mr and Mrs E to understand the complaint fully. The officer also did not seek evidence from Mrs E about what she saw at the school.
38. The IO noted the Council had already improved the way it manages allegations. However, she recommended for the Council to apologise to Mr and Mrs E for the complaints that had been upheld. She also said the Council should consider how, when there are allegations against staff who have been caring for children, the parents of those children can be kept informed, supported, and given advice.
39. The Council considered the IO’s findings, and the adjudicating officer wrote to Mr and Mrs E on 5 July. She apologised for the complaints that had been upheld or partially upheld. She did not set out whether she considered the Council needed to make the further improvements to its service the IO suggested.
40. Mr and Mrs E referred their complaint to stage three on 9 August. They said the Council failed to adhere to statutory timescales when responding to their complaint. They also said its response did not fully address their distress.
41. The Council arranged for the stage three panel to review Mr and Mrs E’s case on 4 October. The panel changed the findings from two subsections of complaint one to upheld. They found the LADO missed an opportunity to take a statement from Mrs E as a witness and this only happened after the senior officer had reviewed the case. The panel recommended for a senior member of staff to contact Mr and Mrs E to hear their concerns and to reassure them of the changes the Council had implemented. The panel also recommended for the Council to arrange a mediation meeting with Mr and Mrs E and to complete the recommendations from the IO’s report. Finally, the panel noted the adjudicating officer did not refer to Mr and Mrs E’s desired outcomes when she responded to the complaint at stage two. This contributed to the perception the Council was not taking complaints seriously enough.
42. Mr and Mrs E chased the Council on 8 December for its response to the panel’s report. The Council provided its response on 16 December. It apologised for the emotional distress the family had experienced and for the delays in responding to their complaint. It also said it had arranged for a manager to contact them to identify and explain the learning that it had put in place. It also offered to arrange a mediation meeting. Finally, it offered them £500 for their injustice.

Back to top

Analysis

43. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. After reviewing all documents, I am satisfied there does not appear to be an obvious flaw in the investigation process that would undermine the conclusions reached. The panel notes also show Mr and Mrs E’s complaints were appropriately considered, resulting in some findings being changed to upheld.
44. The Council has apologised to Mr and Mrs E for the emotional distress caused from the upheld complaints and the delays during the complaints procedure. It also offered them £500 for their emotional distress and time and trouble. I am satisfied the Council’s offer is in line with our guidance on remedies and so I do not recommend anything further for their personal injustice. I note Mr and Mrs E stated during the statutory complaints procedure they wanted the Council to be punished. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to punish councils.
45. The IO was satisfied the Council had improved how it manages allegations. Although this was delayed, the Council has also now written to Mr and Mrs E to invite them to a meeting to explain the changes it has made and to offer mediation. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it provided me with further information on these changes. This includes ensuring CCTV of the incident is reviewed within the allegation management meeting if available and arranging a further meeting if more work is required. It will also ensure it reminds the organisation involved to contact the parents of the child about the process. I am satisfied the Council has fulfilled its commitment to improve its services regarding the allegations management process and so I do not recommend anything further in this regard.
46. However, I also consider the Council needs to make further improvements to its service to address the faults during the statutory complaints procedure. The Council failed at each stage to adhere to the timescales set out in the statutory complaints procedure. These delays were excessive. The adjudicating officer’s response to the IO’s report also lacked clarity, did not properly address the IO’s recommendations and did not refer to Mr and Mrs E’s desired outcomes.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 9 June 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Re-offer Mr and Mrs E the £500 from its response to their complaint.

48. To take action to improve its service, by 4 August 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Review the operation of its statutory complaints procedure to identify where it can make changes to prevent delays.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure the response to an investigating officer’s report is sufficiently detailed and fully addresses the complainant’s desired outcomes.

49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

50. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr and Mrs E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman