Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council when considering a complaint about children’s services, failed to remedy the fact that the family had not been provided with appropriate support. We have not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that West Northamptonshire Council (the Council), through the statutory children’s complaints process, failed to remedy the agreed fact that neither Mrs B nor her children had been provided with ‘appropriate’ (rather than ‘practical’) support for two years. This caused her and her children significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B 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

Statutory complaints procedure

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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
6. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
7. 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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
8. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
9. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
10. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

Ombudsman’s role

11. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
12. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

13. Mrs B has three children with additional and complex needs. In 2021 she asked the Council for help to prevent a carer breakdown. Initially the Council provided advice and made a referral to the Specialist Support Service. In July 2021 the Strengthening Families Service started to provide support. This service provides non-statutory targeted early help to children and families with complex needs. It is multi-agency coordinated support with a team around the family approach, meeting regularly with the family to review and assess the situation.
14. At the point of referral Mrs B requested help with accessing and completing paperwork, advocacy support at appointments, some financial support and respite. Mrs B was particularly struggling with one child. The Council provided support by way of a practitioner liaising with various professionals and agencies (including autism support, mental health services, education and inclusion) involved with the family to strengthen how they work together in a coordinated way to meet the wide range of needs. On a practical level this involved helping Mrs B develop strategies at home to manage behaviour and create workable routines, helping her make a housing application for a more suitable property and liaison over education and social issues.
15. In March 2022 Mrs B requested a higher level of support. The Council agreed to assess and explore the needs of all three children under section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989 as children in need (children who may need extra support or services to maintain or achieve a reasonable standard of health or development). As a result of this the disabled children’s team started to provide support to one of the children as a child in need. This has involved regular child in need meetings, educational support and personal assistant support through direct payments.

Stage one complaint

16. In January 2023 Mrs B made a formal complaint about the delay in providing support, inaccurate information provided to her and the treatment by social care staff.
17. The Council replied in February 2023 upholding parts of her complaint about wrong information being given to her about the assessment process and expected timescales for support. The Council apologised and agreed to review its processes to try and create a more streamlined approach to multi-agency cases.

Stage two complaint

18. Mrs B escalated her complaint to stage two of the statutory process. She met with the Investigating Officer (IO) and the Independent Person (IP) on 16 May 2023 and agreed a statement of complaint on 1 June. This included the complaint that the Council had not provided any practical support for two years. The IO experienced a delay in receiving the case records from the Council, so they did not interview staff until October/November 2023. They completed the stage two report in December 2023. They fully upheld six of the complaints, partially upheld one and did not uphold four, including the complaint about the failure to provide practical support.
19. They agreed there was a lack of clarity over who would provide support and whether assessments would be required. But they concluded that the case records and staff testimony supported the view that staff had done all in their power to provide a variety of support services to meet their needs, including liaison with other specialist services. They agreed that on one occasion a member of staff had made an inappropriate and unprofessional comment about one of the children, that a data breach had not been properly investigated and her complaints had not been properly dealt with. They partially upheld the complaint about delay in facilitating direct payments.
20. The Council responded to the report towards the end of January 2024. It agreed with all the findings and offered Mrs B £600 for her time and distress in having to deal with these issues.

Stage three complaint

21. Mrs B remained dissatisfied and on 8 February 2024 asked for her complaint to be heard by a review panel. In April 2024 the Council confirmed the Panel would be held on 4 June 2024.
22. Before the Panel Mrs B provided information to support her view that appropriate support had not been provided to the family. She felt this had not been made available to the IO during their investigation.
23. The Panel discussed the complaints which the IO had not upheld. They felt the complaint about support should have been summarised as ‘appropriate’ rather than practical support. The IO said Mrs B had accepted the wording of the complaints at the beginning of the process and she had considered them in that context. The Panel also heard from the Council representative that support had been agreed and offered throughout the period by the different teams. The Panel agreed the complaint should remain not upheld as the wording had been agreed by Mrs B. The Panel also agreed that the one complaint about the suitability of a parenting course should be changed from not upheld to partially upheld as a child and family assessment was not completed at the start of the process, leading to a lack of clarity about the needs of the whole family.
24. The Panel made some recommendations for procedural improvements for the future and for the Council to consider a further financial remedy for distress in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
25. The Council responded to the Panel’s findings on 24 June 2024. It agreed with the Panels’ findings and offered a further £500 for the distress Mrs B experienced, in addition to the £600 previously offered for the delays in the complaints process.
26. Mrs B complained to us.

Analysis

27. Aside from the excessive time taken to deal with Mrs B’s complaint through the statutory process which I shall deal with below, I consider the Council carried out a thorough and proportionate investigation of Mrs B’s complaint. It has spoken to her, considered the case records and interviewed the staff involved. It has recognised some fault which caused Mrs B distress and inconvenience and has offered a remedy in line with our Guidance on Remedies for that distress.
28. Where we do not find fault with the process, we do not re-investigate the substance of the complaints. I note in this instance the main issue is Mrs B’s view that the Council delayed in providing appropriate support for the family. The Council has provided details of the support it provided from 2021 and it is clear that support was provided in a variety of ways. The IO found that the Council had made every effort to provide support and services to the family. This was endorsed by the Panel, who offered a further remedy for distress caused by the failure to carry explore the needs of all the family at an earlier stage. I have not found fault in the way the Council reached this conclusion and so I shall not comment further.
29. The Council did however delay excessively in completing the complaints process, taking nearly 18 months when it should have been completed within six. This was fault which caused injustice to Mrs B. The Council has put right the injustice by offering a symbolic payment of £600. This is in excess of the amounts recommended in our Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I have not found fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mrs B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman