Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s statutory complaint investigation into contact between siblings. He complained the Council did not answer his complaint, the financial remedy was low, and it did not action the stage 2 and 3 recommendations. Mr B said this delayed contact between siblings and caused distress. We found fault with the Council for delay progressing the stage 2 recommendations and for delay in its complaint investigation. The Council will resolve the outstanding issues with sibling contact and make service improvements to prevent this happening again in future.

The complaint

1. The representative, who I shall refer to as Mr B, complained for three children in his care about the Council’s statutory complaint investigation about contact with their siblings. He complained the Council did not answer the complaint, the financial remedy was low, and it did not action the stage 2 and 3 recommendations.
2. Mr B says this delayed contact between siblings and caused distress.

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. 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:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
8. Mr B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

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. Complaints investigations under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages:
• Stage 1 - Local Resolution
• Stage 2 - Investigation
• Stage 3 - Review Panel
11. Stage 1: Staff at point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint.
12. Stage 2: An investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent and fair. The IO writes a stage 2 report which includes:
• details of findings, conclusions and outcomes are against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and
• recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
13. Stage 3: A review panel considers the complaint. Review Panels are designed to:
• reach findings on each of the complaints being reviewed;
• make recommendations that provide practical remedies and creative solutions to complex situations;
• to identify any consequent injustice to the complainant where complaints are upheld, and to recommend appropriate redress; and
• recommend any service improvements for action by the authority.
14. The council must send its response to the panel’s recommendations to the complainant within 15 days of receiving the panel’s report. The response should be developed by the relevant Director setting out how the council will respond to the recommendations and what action it will take.
15. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:
• 10 days at stage 1 (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or additional time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage 2 (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to ask for a review panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the review panel at stage 3;
• 5 days for the panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the council to respond to the findings.
16. When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we generally would not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless there are serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.

What happened

17. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
18. Mr and Mrs B are foster carers for three siblings, F, G and H. They have two younger siblings who have been adopted through another council, Council 2. F, G and H have not seen their younger siblings since January 2020. F, G and H asked to have face-to-face contact with their young siblings when they were adopted. The contact agreed during the adoption process was yearly letter box contact.
19. Mr B complained in May 2022 the Council disregarded F, G and H’s wishes and feelings about contact with their siblings and breached their right to family life. He said contact was changed from face-to-face contact to yearly letter box contact. Letter box contact is a formal arrangement for birth parents, relatives, and the adoptive parents to share information about the child(ren) when and if appropriate. He said they had asked the Council for an explanation and been waiting for this for six months. The Council decided to consider the complaint at stage 2.
20. In June 2022, the Council held a meeting to discuss sharing information with F, G and H about the adoption of their siblings. Mr and Mrs B attended. The meeting’s recommendations included:
• Sharing information with the children about their siblings and future contact.
• Supporting the children to read the settling in letter from their younger siblings. A settling in letter is the first letter sent as part of letter box contact.
• Speaking to Council 2 to understand why the contact agreed during the adoption was yearly letter box contact.
• Ongoing life story work for the children about their siblings.
21. The agreed points of investigation at stage 2 relevant to this investigation were:
• 1 - The Council failed to ensure the wishes and feelings of F, G and H were represented during the adoption of their younger siblings.
• 2 - The Council did not tell Mr and Mrs B face-to-face contact was not agreed during the adoption.
• 3 - The Council failed to keep F, G and H up-to-date about the adoption proceedings.
• 4 - The Council did not offer F, G and H an advocate.
• 5 - The Council had not put in place support for F, G and H to read the settling in letter from their younger siblings.
• 6 - The Council failed to tell Mr and Mrs B why contact arrangements changed.
• 8 - The Council delayed sending them the settling in letter.
22. Mr and Mrs B wanted the children to have contact with their siblings, support for them to read the ‘settling in’ letter and to understand why the Council did not seek to achieve contact for the siblings during the process of adoption.
23. The IO and the IP submitted their reports in August 2022. The IO upheld complaints 1 to 6. They did not uphold complaint 8. The IO found there was drift and a failure to act by the Council with respect of F, G and H’s contact with their siblings. The IO said they could not determine why the Council spoke to F, G and H about face-to-face contact with their siblings in April 2021, only for letter box contact to be agreed in court.
24. The IO recommended:
• The Council should take immediate action to ensure the actions raised in the June meeting are finalised and shared with the family. Including support for the children to read the settling in letter; discussions with Council 2 to understand why the contact was not pursued in April / June 2021; and, ongoing life story work
• The Council formally apologise for the elements upheld.
• The Council consider using the case for development and training, and to improve service delivery around looked after children and sibling contact.
25. The Council sent its stage two adjudication in October 2022. It agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. It apologised for its significant failings in practice and said it would ensure it completed the actions from the meeting in June in the next 20 working days.
26. The Council held a meeting to discuss the actions it needed to complete:
• Explore with the siblings' adoptive parents how contact / family time can be promoted.
• Support the children to read the settling in letter from their siblings.
• Speak to Council 2 to understand why contact was not pursued in April / June 2021.
• Ongoing life story work for the children.
• Issue an apology letter to the children.
• Produce an anonymised version of the IO report to share with all Heads of children in care services to ensure the learning from the complaint informs development and training.
27. Mr and Mrs B asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 3 in October 2022. They felt the Council did not understand the significance of what it had done, resolved any of the issues or answered the questions they had asked in their complaint.
28. In November 2022, the Council met with Mr and Mrs B to discuss their complaint. The Council accepted part of the reason F, G and H had not had contact with their siblings was because of a lack of communication and organisation between it and Council 2. It said lockdown restrictions also contributed. Mr and Mrs B told the Council F, G and H still did not know their siblings had been adopted or about future contact. The Council explained Council 2 did not have parental responsibility for F, G and H’s siblings because they had been adopted. It said it would speak to Council 2 and find out what their adopters views were about face-to-face contact.
29. Before the stage three panel, the Council asked staff for an update on the stage 2 recommendations. In response, the Council received the following update:
• It had contacted Council 2 and left a message for it to contact the Council to explore if the adopters were open to face-to-face contact.
• It put on hold the action to ensure the actions arising from the June meeting were finalised and shared with the family. It said this was because of the ongoing complaint and in case different or additional actions were recommended.
• It had shared an anonymised version of the IO report with Heads of children in care services and its senior management team.
30. The Council held the stage three panel in November 2022. The panel agreed with the stage 2 findings and recommendations.
31. The stage three panel recommended:
• The Council actioned the recommendations made by the IO as a matter of urgency.
• The Council as a matter of urgency developed a plan to bring closure to the longstanding issue of contact for the children.
• The Council considered offering Mr and Mrs B and the children in their care compensation for the failings identified within the IO’s report and in line with the guidance notes and LGSCO’s guidance on remedies.
32. Panel attendees agreed as F, G and H were not aware of the full extent of the complaint, it would not be appropriate for the Council to send them a letter of apology.
33. During the panel, Mr B asked why contact between the siblings was changed from face-to-face to letter box contact only. The Council said it had contacted Council 2 and asked it to confirm what was in the adopted siblings final care plan. The Panel expressed disappointment that the Council had not got this information sooner and had not made an application to Court to access the relevant information. The panel also said it was disappointed the Council had not escalated the matter to bring the severity of the situation to the attention of staff of significant seniority. The panel said the Council should urgently find out whether F, G and H could have face-to-face contact with their siblings.
34. The Council contacted Council 2 and asked what the adopters current view was on the siblings having face-to-face contact. Council 2 told the Council its court report stated indirect contact would take place at least yearly, but this might progress to direct contact in the future if this was in the best interest of all the children and if the adopters and F, G and H’s foster carers agreed to it. Council 2 said the adopters remained of the view they would consider direct contact between the siblings in the future, but this would be subject to them preparing their children for any meeting and the success of letter box contact. Council 2 said it would send the Council the first annual letter box contact from the adopters to F, G and H.
35. The Council sent its stage three adjudication in January 2023. The Council apologised for its delay sending its response. It said it would take the following actions:
• Develop an action plan for implementing the stage two recommendations and telling the children what will happen next regarding contact with their siblings and when it will happen.
• Pay F, G and H £750 each in recognition of the missed opportunity to have contact with their younger siblings.
• Pay Mr and Mrs B £500 in recognition of the time and trouble they incurred pursuing the complaint.
36. The Council shared its action plan for sharing information with F, G and H with Mr and Mrs B in January 2023. The aim of the plan was for information about contact to be shared with the children by the end of January 2023. Mr and Mrs B raised concerns about the timings of the plan and who should share the information.
37. The Council held a meeting with Mr and Mrs B to discuss how the Council could progress the agreed actions. Attendees agreed a revised plan. The Council did not minute the meeting or make a case record.
38. In response to enquiries the Council provided information from Council 2. Council 2 advised there was never a plan for F, G and H to have direct contact with their siblings. Council 2 provided a chronology from May 2021 onwards showing in its correspondence with the Council it consistently referred to the plan being for letter box contact with the potential for this to be progressed to direct contact in the future if appropriate. Council 2 said this is what was recorded in the siblings’ permanence reports, final care plan and its report for court.

Analysis

39. The IO and IP undertook a thorough and detailed investigation into Mr and Mrs B’s complaint and I am satisfied the findings they reached were sound and the recommendations made appropriate. I am also satisfied the stage 3 panel properly considered Mr and Mrs B’s concerns. This means reinvestigation of the substantive matters was neither necessary nor warranted.
40. Mr and Mrs B complained the complaints investigation did not explain why face-to-face contact was changed to letter box contact. The stage two and three investigations upheld this complaint. In November 2022, Council 2 confirmed F, G and H would have yearly indirect contact with their siblings. It said direct family time would be considered in the future if this was in the best interest of all the children. It is disappointing it took the Council so long to confirm this for F, G and H, especially given Council 2 shared this information with the Council as early as May 2021 and on multiple occasions since. The Council should have kept accurate records of its communication with Council 2 about sibling contact, and failing that, secured this information sooner; not doing so was fault. Poor record keeping and the Council’s delay seeking the required information caused Mr and Mrs B frustration and created uncertainty for F, G and H about contact with their siblings. The Council remedied the injustice to Mr and Mrs B and F, G and H by making financial payments.
41. In June 2022, the Council identified actions for it to take to resolve some of the concerns Mr and Mrs B had raised. These included: sharing information with the children about their siblings and future contact, and speaking to Council 2 to understand why the contact agreed during the adoption process was yearly letter box contact. These actions were outstanding when the IO wrote her stage 2 report. The IO said the Council should take immediate action to complete these. The Council said it would complete these within 20 working days of its October 2022 adjudication letter. It did not. The Council said this was because of the ongoing complaint and not wanting different or additional actions being recommended. The Council did not consider the impact on F, G and H of its delay progressing these actions. Therefore, I find the Council’s decision making flawed and its failure to complete these actions sooner fault. The Council remedied the injustice caused by its delay by making financial payments to F, G and H.
42. Mr B complained the financial remedy the Council offered F, G and H was low. The Council offered to pay them £750 each in recognition of the missed opportunity to have contact with their younger siblings. It said it decided this by taking account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, its inability to compel the adopters to agree to face-to-face contact, and the impact on the children given they had limited knowledge of the complaint. The injustice to F, G and H was the missed opportunity to have their wishes and feelings considered during their siblings’ adoption. I cannot say whether the Court would have made a different decision about contact if F, G and H had been properly represented during their siblings’ adoption. Therefore, I consider the amount the Council offered a suitable remedy. It is a symbolic payment to remedy the missed opportunity for them to have their wishes and feelings represented during their sibling’s adoption.
43. As well as the matters raised by Mr and Mrs B about the Council’s complaint investigation, I found the following faults with the Council’s administration of the complaint investigation:
• The Council did not minute or make a case recording of the meeting it had with Mr and Mrs B in January 2023 about actioning the recommendations from the complaint investigation.
• The Council delayed completing its stage 2 investigation. It should have done this in 65 working days, it took the Council a further 34 working days.
• The Council should have sent its stage 3 adjudication 15 working days after the stage 3 panel issued its report. The Council took 30 working days.
44. The Council has remedied the injustice it caused to Mr and Mrs B by its failures to administrate the complaint investigation correctly. It paid Mr and Mrs B £500 in recognition of the time and trouble they incurred pursuing the complaint. I consider this a suitable remedy for the Council’s administrative faults.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one months of the final decision, the Council will:
• Resolved the outstanding issues with letter box contact between F, G and H and their siblings.
• Issue children social care staff with guidance to ensure they keep minutes for meetings and records of correspondence about children’s care planning and statutory complaints, and these are added to case files.
46. Within two months of the final decision, the Council will:
• Review its policies and procedures to ensure social workers write a handover summary for each case they hold when they leave, and these are reviewed by the supervising manager. If staff leave unexpectedly, the supervising manager should write the summary on review of the case.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. F, G and H were caused an injustice by the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman