Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. He complained the Council failed to support contact arrangements with his son and said he had been victimised. We have found no fault in the way the Council considered his complaint. However, we have found there were delays in the complaint process and the Council’s review of contact arrangements. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements for the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. He complained the Council failed to support contact arrangements with his son and said he had been victimised. Mr X says his complaint was not properly investigated or considered. In particular:

• there were delays in the procedure;
• not all the complaints he raised were investigated or addressed; and
• the Council provided incorrect information to the investigating officer and the review panel.

2. Mr X says this has caused distress to him and his son. Mr X says he has been caused time and trouble in complaining and wants the Council to acknowledge it has behaved wrongly.

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 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way the organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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 have read the information provided by Mr X and spoke to him about the complaint. I made enquiries of the Council, reviewed the information it provided and considered its response to Mr X’s complaint.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered Mr X’s comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Section 26(3) of the Childrens Act 1989 sets out a three-stage procedure (the Procedure) for councils to follow when looking at complaints about Children’s Services. At stage two of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person, who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage three review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
10. The timescales in working days for the Procedure are:

• 10 days at stage one (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or additional time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage two (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to request a Review Panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage three;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the council to respond to the findings.

(Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).

11. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Background to the complaint

12. This is a brief summary of key events in this case and is not meant to show everything that happened.
13. In 2016, Mr X’s son, Y, was made subject to a care order with a view to long term foster care. Mr X was granted contact with Y at the discretion of the Council.
14. In 2019, the Council agreed a gradual increase in supervised contact to ninety minutes every fortnight.
15. In December 2021, an incident took place during a supervised contact session. Following this incident, the Council reduced contact from ninety minutes every fortnight to every eight weeks. Dissatisfied with the way the matter had been handled, Mr X complained to the Council in April 2022.

Mr X’s complaint through the children’s complaints procedure

16. The complaint was considered under the Procedure. This took approximately twelve months to complete.

Stage Two complaint

17. The Council appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation. Mr X was invited to meet with the IO and IP. Mr X declined this and said he preferred to communicate via email. Mr X agreed a statement of complaint and provided evidence which he said supported his complaint that staff acted with bias towards him.
18. The IO investigated the complaint, reviewed case records and interviewed relevant council officers.
19. Mr X made eight complaints. In summary the complaints and findings are:
1. the reduction in contact between Mr X and his son had caused him great upset and Mr X believed that staff had intended for this upset to be caused. Mr X said that for the last twenty months contact had been every eight weeks instead of fortnightly. Mr X believed this was a punishment for an incident that happened in December 2020.

The IO found evidence of positive contact between Mr X and Y and some issues with Mr X during contact. The IO found no evidence the Council had deliberately reduced the frequency of contact to cause upset to Mr X. The IO noted that contact was going extremely well and had been increased in accordance with the wishes of both Y and Mr X. The Council reported that Mr X’s behaviours in missing some contacts; turning up late and turning up under the influence of alcohol, had an impact on Y. Following the incident in December 2021, Y told his carers that he did not want to see Mr X. The IO amended the stage two report (the report) to include Mr X’s comments that he only turned up for contact under the influence of alcohol on one occasion; he had only missed contact once due to having tested positive for Covid-19 and was 15 minutes late once only. The IO did not uphold this part of the complaint.

2. Mr X said adults were speaking ill of him in front of his son.

The IO referred to the incident in December 2021 and was satisfied that Officer 3 did not speak ill of Mr X but had advised the foster carers of what had happened. The IO also considered an email sent by Y’s foster carers. The IO noted that Officer 3 did not have the authority to change the nature of the contact or where it took place. Mr X disagreed with the IO and his comments were recorded in the stage two report.

The IO considered the findings and Mr X’s comments and did not uphold this part of the complaint.

3. A Social Worker (SW1) did not respond to a voicemail left by Mr X on 26 March 2022.

The IO found no evidence of a voicemail being left by Mr X but found SW1 had attempted to call Mr X several times on 6 April 2022 and not 29 March 2022 as originally stated in the Council’s stage one response. The IO also found that SW1 was not aware that Mr X preferred communication via email.

The IO partially upheld this part of the complaint and noted the investigation was hampered by the case recordings not being up to date and comprehensive enough to assist in making findings on some of the complaints.

4. Officer 1 insisted that assessment sessions should take place in Mr X’s house and when this couldn’t happen Officer 1 stated that Mr X had refused a face-to-face meeting.

The IO found no evidence of the conversation between Officer 1 and Mr X about this and differing accounts of the discussions that took place. In the absence of any independent evidence the IO upheld this part of the complaint.

5. An incident occurred during contact in December 2021, when Mr X and his son wanted to go shopping and the contact officer who was supervising the session said that could not happen. Mr X said a manager (Officer 2) then put pressure on his son in terms of whether he wanted to do this during the contact session, and this caused his son to not say what he wanted to happen.

The IO noted that detailed case records were available and there was no reference to Officer 2 speaking to Y. The IO found no evidence of anyone putting Y under pressure about what he waned to do. It was Y who reported to his foster carers that he was scared and upset by how Mr X had behaved. The IO noted the Council had received an email from the foster carers about the incident and how it had affected Y.

The report noted that Mr X’s comments that he clearly remembered Officer 2 speaking to Y and so did Y.

The IO made no finding on this part of the complaint on the basis there was no specific record in the case file about whether Officer Y spoke to Y or not.

6. The contact assessment completed in Spring 2021, contained information which Mr X believed had been copied and pasted from assessments which were undertaken five or six years previously.

The IO confirmed that two contact assessments have been completed. Static information from the first assessment would have been transferred through to the second assessment. This part of the complaint was not upheld.

7. Mr X believed there had been an introduction of an additional clause in relation to contact sessions not involving shopping trips and this had been put in place by Officer 1. Mr X said this was not in line with Y’s wishes as he had previously enjoyed shopping for items such as birthday presents.

The Council told the IO that there was a ban on going shopping based on Y’s wishes and feelings following the incident in December 2021. The IO found this decision had been made by SW1 and a team manager. The IO stated that Y’s wishes and feelings had been discussed with him during all statutory visits and looked after child reviews, which were paramount to the management of contact between Mr X and Y.

It was noted that this ban had been lifted and Y enjoyed going shopping for items for Mr X’s allotment.

The report noted Mr X’s comments that he was not aware the ban was due to Y’s wishes and feelings. He said Y enjoyed shopping very much. Mr X said he had provided copies of text messages to the IO and disagreed with the IO’s findings. The IO confirmed he had considered the information received from Mr X and was satisfied decisions had not been made to punish Mr X or make contact difficult. Y was regularly spoken to, and his wishes and feelings reflected the contact arrangements in place. This included not wanting to see Mr X following the incident in December.

This part of the complaint was not upheld.

8. Mr X said there had been issues with the quality of contact sessions which had not been able to take place due to the location of the sessions and resources available and this had had an impact on Mr X and Y.

The IO found this was not just a complaint from Mr X but also from Y who had told the Council during a review in November 2021, that he was unhappy with the resources at the contact centre.

This part of the complaint was upheld.

20. The stage two report was finalised on 25 November 2022. The investigation found evidence of poor record keeping, miscommunication and lack of sufficient resources at the contact centre. The IO found no evidence of bias against Mr X.
21. The Council considered the IO’s report and wrote to Mr X on 21 December, accepting the findings. It agreed with the IO’s recommendations to:

• apologise to Mr X for those complaints that were upheld or partially upheld;
• enter into a meaningful dialogue with Mr X in relation to his perception of how he has been treated and how the Council’s focus was on the best interests of Y;
• implement a contract of expectation with Mr X regarding contact arrangements and Mr X should be encouraged to sign it;
• complete a review/audit of the resources at the contact centre and ensure sufficient resources were provided at the venue;
• improve record keeping following voicemails and contact with all parties;
• in relation to the quality of contact, find a way to ensure the Council works with Mr X and that Mr X involves himself in the process to ensure they are of a high quality and meet the needs of Y; and
• develop a system that when staff are absent from work, a message is available on their phone with details of an alternative contact.

22. Mr X remained unsatisfied and asked for his complaint to be investigated at stage three.

Stage Three complaint

23. On 27 March 2023, a stage three panel (the panel) meeting took place. Mr X provided a written statement to the panel in advance of the meeting. Mr X said the stage two investigation was flawed because lies had been told that led to the investigator being unable to give an accurate account of events.
24. The panel was satisfied the IO had undertaken a comprehensive and full investigation of the concerns raised by Mr X. The panel said it was clear that on certain matters there were differing and conflicting views that were difficult to resolve. The panel agreed with the recommendations set out in the stage two report. It also made the following additional recommendations:

• steps to be taken as a matter of urgency to acknowledge the breakdown in trust between Mr X and the Council and appropriate steps are taken to address this;
• a comprehensive review of the contact arrangements should take place within 28 days of the panel meeting. The review should take into account the views of Y which should be central to the frequency and type of future contact arrangements;
• direct work to be undertaken with Y within 28 days of the panel meeting;
• reviews should ensure that Y’s religious and cultural needs are monitored, and his needs are being met; and
• Mr X should be supported to engage with children’s services to find common ground in order that the best interests of Y are appropriately considered going forward.

25. On 20 April, the Council wrote to Mr X accepting the findings and recommendations made by the panel.
26. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mr X bought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s comments on our enquiries

27. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council to explain whether it had completed a review of the contact arrangements between Mr X and Y. The stage three panel had recommended this was completed within 28 days.
28. The Council said an assessment was completed on 6 June 2023 and included Y’s wishes and feelings. The Council shared a copy of the assessment with Mr X’s legal representative. It said, it had attempted to share the assessment with Mr X but was unable to do so.

Analysis

29. The Procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of the concerns raised. On this basis, I do not intend to reinvestigate the complaints Mr X raised at stage two of the Procedure because I am satisfied from the evidence provided the complaints have been considered in detail. It is a thorough and robust investigation into the complaints. I find Mr X had the opportunity to put forward his concerns throughout the process. The Council has accepted the findings made at stage two and stage three.
30. With this context in mind my investigation has focussed on Mr X’s specific areas of concern about the Procedure (set out at paragraph 1 above).

There were delays in the Procedure.

31. Paragraph 10 above sets out the relevant timescales for investigating Mr X’s complaint. Non-complex cases should be completed within 95 days and 170 days where the complaint is complex. Mr X made his original complaint in April 2022 and the final stage three response was sent in April 2023. This is significantly longer than the law expects.
32. In response to my enquiries the Council has accepted there was some unavoidable delay in processing Mr X’s complaint. Where there has been fault during the complaint process the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies recommends making a symbolic payment for the delay in the statutory process.
33. I consider this was a complex case and there was a delay of six months in the handling of Mr X’s complaint through the Procedure. This caused Mr X distress in the form of frustration and uncertainty. I consider £300 to be an appropriate amount to remedy the injustice caused.

The Procedure did not address all the complaints Mr X raised

34. I have reviewed the records of the stage two 2 investigation. Mr X was invited to meet with the IO and IP. Mr X declined this and said he preferred to communicate via email. Mr X agreed a statement of complaint and provided supporting evidence to the investigator. It was clear what the IO would investigate. Mr X also had the opportunity to comment on the stage two report. The IO considered Mr X’s comments and they were recorded in the final stage two report. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The Council provided incorrect information to the investigating officer and the review panel

35. I have reviewed the records considered at stage two and stage three of the Procedure. I have found no evidence to support Mr X’s claim. As explained above, Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the stage two report which he did. Mr X also had the opportunity to provide a written statement to the stage three panel, which he also did.
36. Mr X’s comments included concerns about inaccuracies in evidence considered by the IO and the panel. I find, Mr X’s comments were appropriately considered and addressed throughout the Procedure and there is no reason for me to investigate this matter further.

Review of contact arrangements between Mr X and Y

37. The Council should have completed a review of the contact arrangements between Mr X and Y by 24 April 2023. There was a delay of approximately six weeks in completing the review. The delay is fault. I recommend the Council should apologise to Mr X for the delay.

Conclusion

38. Overall, I am satisfied the Council carried out a thorough, robust, independent review of Mr X’s complaint. However, I have found the Council failed to remedy the injustice caused by the delay in the Procedure. I also find there was a delay in completing the recommendation set out by the stage three panel.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
1. pay Mr X £300 for the delay in the complaint process;
2. apologise to Mr X for the delay in completing a review of contact arrangements; and
3. remind relevant staff of the need to complete the children's statutory complaints procedure within the statutory timescales.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have found the Council to be at fault for the delay in the handling of Mr X’s complaint and its review of contact arrangements. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman