Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consider a complaint about its actions and record-keeping in child protection matters. She also complains about the Council’s decision not to provide a financial remedy at the outcome of a previous complaint. We have found the Council at fault for not properly considering the review panel’s recommendation, or explaining its decision. However, the remedy the Council now proposes addresses the injustice caused. We have not found the Council at fault for not investigating a further complaint from Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider a complaint about its actions and record-keeping in child protection matters. Mrs X also complains about the Council’s decision not to award a financial remedy in respect of a recent complaint, despite the review panel recommending the Council do so.
2. Mrs X wanted the Council to take action to address her outstanding concerns and reconsider its position on a financial remedy.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mrs X provided about the complaint.
5. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
6. Both Mrs X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

The statutory complaints procedure

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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 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.
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 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
11. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, 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.

Time limits for complaints

12. The statutory guidance says that local authorities do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to make the complaint arose. It says in such cases, the council’s Complaints Manager should write to advise the complainant that their complaint cannot be considered and explain the reasons why.
13. It says decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis and that, generally, there is a presumption in favour of accepting complaints, unless there are good reasons not to.

Back to top

What I found

Background

14. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every interaction between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the analysis section of this decision statement.
15. Mrs X was awarded a Special Guardianship Order for her grandchild. Mrs X complained to the Council about its refusal to supervise contact between her grandchild and their father, Mr Y. The Council decided not to investigate this complaint. In 2021, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision.
16. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for not investigating Mrs X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council agreed to begin an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 2 of this procedure.
17. Mrs X’s complaint went to stage three of the statutory procedure. In April 2022, a Stage 3 review panel considered Mrs X’s complaint and issued to the Council its report, setting out its findings and conclusions. In May 2022, the Council sent its final complaint response to Mrs X, setting out its response to the panel’s recommendations:
1. The panel recommended the Council offer an apology, which the Council did.
2. The panel recommended the Council reconsider a decision at Stage 2 not to award financial compensation to Mrs X and suggested a financial remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies. The Council said it had considered this again. It said it understood it had been an emotional and stressful time for Mrs X’s grandson. However, it said it could not support a request for financial redress.
3. The panel recommended the Council meet with Mrs X following the review. The Council agreed to do so.
4. The panel recommended the Council review its current practice of allocating an Investigating Officer (IO) from the same Council directorate as that being complained about. The Council said it had considered this carefully when appointing the IO and said it had also appointed an Independent Person (IP), not employed by the Council, to ensure the investigation was fair and impartial. The Council said it was satisfied the investigation had been conducted in such a manner.
5. The panel recommended the Council review its special guardianship policy, to ensure special guardians were clear about the support available for unforeseen circumstances and contingency planning. The Council agreed to do this.
6. The panel recommended the Council ensure the Adjudicating Officer (AO) was not an active participant in the investigation in future. The Council said the AO was asked to act in this capacity as the service issues fell within their service area, they were new to the authority, and they had had little-to-no involvement with Mrs X’s case previously. The Council said, with the benefit of hindsight, it agreed it would have been more appropriate for another officer to have considered the Stage 2 outcomes and act as AO.
7. The Council confirmed it upheld two aspects of Mrs X’s complaint, as the panel recommended. It said it had provided details about the decision-making process at key points, as Mrs X had sought. It noted that supervised contact between Mrs X’s grandson and Mr Y had resumed. It apologised again for occasions when Mrs X had not felt fully supported.
18. Mrs X met with the Council on two further occasions following the Council’s final complaint response. Mrs X sought further clarity on some parts of her complaint. In December 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X, setting out its response to historical concerns Mrs X had raised in the recent meetings. These concerns dated back to 2017 and related to the Council’s record-keeping, decision-making, and contact with other local authorities and the Police. The Council also said some of Mrs X’s concerns related to actions taken by another authority, as well as arrangements put in place by the courts. The Council said it could not address these matters.
19. On the 13 January 2023, Mrs X wrote to the Council. She said historical incidents, between 2014 and 2019, had been misrepresented in the Council’s records. Mrs X also said there were historic concerns that had not been acted upon, with there being missed opportunities to avoid harm. Mrs X wanted the Council to meet her past legal costs and raised concerns about letterbox contact arrangements put in place between her grandchildren.
20. The Council issued a further response to Mrs X, explaining why it would not consider a new complaint about these matters.
21. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2023. She explained she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint following the Stage 3 panel review and believed there were grounds for a new complaint.

Analysis

Outcome of Mrs X’s Stage 3 complaint

22. The Ombudsman’s approach to complaints involving the statutory complaints procedure is set out in paragraph 11. I have seen no indication the investigation was in any way flawed. I have not therefore re-investigated any parts of Mrs X’s complaint that have been considered through the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
23. The Council considered and appropriately responded to most of the independent panel’s recommendations. However, it declined to pay Mrs X financial compensation, despite the panel recommending it do so. In its response to Mrs X, it said it did not think it could support a recommendation for financial redress. It did not explain why it believed this to be the case.
24. I asked the Council for its rationale for disagreeing with the panel’s recommendations and any evidence of how it made this decision. The Council told me it did not agree that financial redress was necessary at the time. It said this was because neither Mrs X nor her grandchild had suffered any financial loss. It said it had reached this conclusion internally through officer discussion and there was no written record of this decision.
25. The Council said it had since reconsidered this decision and would offer Mrs X a financial remedy of £1000, for the benefit of her grandchild. It said this was in recognition of the distress experienced and the time and trouble incurred in pursuing the complaint.
26. I have found the Council at fault for not properly considering the panel’s recommendation for a financial remedy and for failing to explain its decision to Mrs X at the time. This caused Mrs X an injustice. Had the Council properly considered the panel’s recommendations and explained its position, Mrs X may not have needed to approach the Ombudsman.
27. However, I consider the Council’s new offer is appropriate and satisfies the independent panel’s recommendation to consider financial redress. The Council’s proposal would remedy any injustice caused.

Council’s decision not to investigate complaint

28. Mrs X says the Council should consider the matters raised in her letter of the 13 January 2023 as a new complaint. The Council has declined to do so.
29. Responding to my enquiries, the Council:
1. told me it had addressed many of Mrs X’s concerns in previous complaint responses.
2. provided details of multiple complaints it had responded to since 2018 about matters related to Mrs X’s complaint, including two previous approaches to the Ombudsman. It confirmed it had decided to investigate out-of-time complaints, about matters occurring more than 12 months before, on multiple occasions.
3. said Mrs X’s current complaint had been through Stages 2 and 3 of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Following this, the Council met with Mrs X on two occasions for meetings that lasted two hours each. It said it had then followed up on any concerns or discussions in writing.
4. said it had provided as full an account as possible, had shared with Mrs X an accurate and true reflection of its records from the time, and had attempted to answer Mrs X’s questions as fully as it could. It felt it could not add anything further.
30. The statutory guidance says complaints must be made within one year of the event being complained about, but that councils have discretion to consider older matters where they could not have been raised earlier and where evidence is available. We may find fault in cases where a council has failed to consider its discretion to investigate.
31. In this case, the Council wrote to Mrs X to explain its position and set out why it could not meaningfully add anything further. It explained it has responded to many of the concerns raised already and some matters had occurred too long ago. It also said that some of Mrs X’s concerns would be for other local authorities to address. The Council has decided to investigate out-of-time complaints from Mrs X on numerous occasions and says it has responded previously to many of the matters raised. The substantive complaint has also just been through the statutory complaints procedure and the Council has now accepted the independent review panel’s recommendations fully.
32. It also says that other parts of Mrs X’s complaint concerned matters that happened more than 12 months ago. I have not found any reason why Mrs X could not have raised these matters with the Council or the Ombudsman earlier, or as part of the complaint it has just considered through the statutory complaints procedure.
33. I believe the Council can demonstrate it properly considered the facts of Mrs X’s case when it decided not to investigate a further complaint. It has demonstrated it has used its discretion to investigate older complaints in the past and has explained why it will not do so on this occasion.
34. Given the Council has demonstrated that it has properly considered its discretion in this case, I have not found the Council at fault for its decision not to investigate Mrs X’s further complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mrs X the £1000 financial remedy it proposed during the course of this investigation.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. The Council’s proposed actions provide a remedy to the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman