Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with an allegation made about her and that the Council introduced supervised contact with her grandchildren without her knowledge. She also complained the way the Council dealt with her complaints was flawed which caused further distress. The investigation took too long and not all of the agreed actions were completed. We found the Council were at fault and recommended a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council unreasonably imposed the need for supervised contact with two of her grandchildren without informing her. Supervised contact occurred without her knowledge as a result. When Mrs X became aware of the decision, there was significant delay in responding to her complaint. Mrs X also complained the Council had not taken the action that was agreed at a panel meeting.
2. Mrs X explained that the Council’s decision and the way it handled the matter caused family difficulties, significant distress and affected her health.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I listened to a recording of the panel meeting and asked the Council for information about the complaint.
7. Mrs X 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

Background

8. In 2015 an allegation was made about Mrs X. This concerned something she had said to two of her grandchildren who were being looked after by family members. The Council considered the allegation and decided that all of Mrs X’s contact with her grandchildren should be supervised. The Council involved the family members who were looking after her grandchildren but it did not discuss the allegation with Mrs X or tell her that contact was to be supervised.
9. Unbeknown to Mrs X, contact that she had with her grandchildren from August 2015 was supervised by family members.
10. In 2016 Mrs X overheard a conversation between other family members discussing the need for supervised contact. She contacted the Council and was told about the allegation.
11. In June 2016 Mrs X and family members met with the Council to discuss the situation. Mrs X recorded the meeting. It was agreed the matter would be considered as a complaint under the Statutory Childrens’ Complaint process.

Complaint Process – Stage One

12. A response was sent to Mrs X at Stage One of the complaints process on 6 August 2018. I have not repeated the content here. I have only summarised the findings in respect of the key issue; the decision to require supervised contact and the decision not to communicate this.
13. The investigator found no fault in the decision to require supervised contact and not to tell Mrs X. The report noted members of the family as well as relevant council officers were involved in making the decision. It stated the decision makers decided not to tell Mrs X because there were concerns it may cause further issues. The investigator noted the decision was referred to a manager.
14. The investigation stated a social worker (SW) had noted concerns about how Mrs X spoke with the grandchildren on more than one occasion. The SW believed it could have a negative impact on their wellbeing. The investigator stated at a meeting on 20 April 2016 Mrs X had expressed that she knew about historical concerns around similar matters. The report stated the council records which set out reports about Mrs X’s behaviour had been shared with her via an SAR.
15. Mrs X had also complained that the SW failed to write and confirm to Mrs X why the decisions were made and who made them. They had agreed to do this in 2016. The investigator partially upheld this part of the complaint because a letter had not been sent. The investigator noted, instead, officers met with Mrs X on 21 June 2016 and explained what had happened, albeit this was 2-3 months later.
16. Mrs X was dissatisfied, and she asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the process.

Complaint Process – Stage Two

17. On 25 September 2018 Mrs X was told an investigator had been appointed to consider her complaint at Stage Two. The investigator contacted Mrs X between September and November 2018 to discuss the complaint. Mrs X was assisted by an advocate.
18. For various reasons, Mrs X and her advocate were unable to set out the outcomes Mrs X sought via the complaint until the end of January 2019.
19. It took the Council until 1 March to review Mrs X’s submission and seek more information. It took until 26 April for Mrs X and her advocate to meet and respond further. On 14 May 2019, the Investigating Officer (IO) sent Mrs X a copy of the agreed complaints.
20. During May the IO interviewed various council officers. She met Mrs X in June 2019. I understand the Stage Two investigation was completed on 28 August 2019.

Key Issues at Stage Two

21. Mrs X reiterated her complaint that she had not been told about allegations against her and given an opportunity to comment, nor had she been told her contact was being supervised as a result.
22. She noted the allegations were discussed in a Looked After Child (LAC) review meeting in August 2015 but she was not told about this and she did not receive a copy of the minutes.
23. Mrs X disagreed that since raising the issue, she had been able to have unsupervised contact. She stated she had been given contradictory information about whether contact still needed to be supervised.
24. Mrs X also complained that when she contacted the Council about the matter, her calls were not always returned and the Stage One complaint did not establish the facts. The issues with the Stage One investigation were that:
• It suggested she had been aware of historical concerns since April 2016 and she had a chance to discuss them at a meeting in June 2016. Mrs X stated she was only aware of one incident that led to her having supervised contact. Only one allegation was discussed in the June 2016 meeting. She had not been told about other allegations that were referred to in the Stage One response.
• Mrs X had obtained copy records via Subject Access Requests (SARs). She said her response to the allegation had not been recorded in the June 2016 meeting minutes and some of the content was inaccurate.
25. The Stage Two Investigator listened to Mrs X’s recording of the June 2016 meeting, reviewed the Council’s records and carried out various interviews. They found that:
• Mrs X should have been told about the allegation made by the children at the time. So, Mrs X’s complaint about the way the matter was handled in 2015 was upheld.
• During the meeting in June 2016 the Council agreed to send Mrs X a copy of the minutes. This was not done until 2018 as part of the complaint response. The Investigator also noted, prior to the June 2016 meeting, a SW agreed to send written confirmation of the specific concerns about Mrs X’s approach with the children. This had not been done because of the meeting held in June. However, Mrs X had not been told this was the case. These elements of Mrs X’s complaint were also upheld.
• The investigator found no evidence to establish if there was a failure to return Mrs X’s calls. They made no finding on this.
• The investigator noted multiple incidents were referred to in the Stage One complaint response, Mrs X had only been told about one. The Investigator confirmed the Stage One complaint response was wrong. The only allegation was the one discussed at the June 2016 meeting, so Mrs X had been given the chance to discuss the allegation.
• The investigation acknowledged that not every part of the discussion in June 2016 was noted in the minutes. This was partly upheld.
• The investigator noted the June 2016 minutes confirmed contact was unsupervised. However, it found Mrs X was correct that contact was still supervised. There was no case record showing when this was to be changed. This was upheld. However, it was noted Mrs X wished to continue with supervised contact now for her own reasons.
• Mrs X complained she should be provided with the minutes of a Looked after Child (LAC) meeting in August 2015 where the matter was originally discussed. The Investigation found it was correct that the LAC meeting minutes would not be shared with Mrs X as she did not have parental responsibility for the children.

Stage Two Recommended Outcomes

26. The investigator recommended a letter of apology be provided for the way the initial matter was handled and for the upset this caused, for the failure to send the agreed letter about the allegations in 2016 and for not sending the meeting minutes in 2016. An apology was also provided for delay in clarifying there was only one allegation and for delays in the complaint process.
27. A recommendation was made that a letter should be sent to confirm whether contact is required to be supervised or unsupervised, and to detail the allegation that was originally made. Learning from the complaint was also to be shared with the SW and other teams.
28. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 11 October accepting the investigation findings and providing an apology. It noted the Council had already written to confirm the current status of her contact with her grandchildren and information had been provided about the allegation made. The Council offered Mrs X £100 in compensation.

Stage Three Panel

29. Mrs X took the complaint to a Stage Three panel as she remained dissatisfied. Mrs X shared a recording of the panel meeting. In respect of the key issue, the panel stated the Council’s response to the matter was excessive. They found that referring to what happened as an ‘allegation’ was considered extreme and inappropriate. The panel found there was no justifiable reason not to tell Mrs X about the allegation and proposed action at the time, and not doing so caused distress.
30. We have seen the panel report. In response to Mrs X’s concerns, the panel:
• endorsed the need to provide clarification to Mrs X about the allegations and status of her contact with her grandchildren (which the Council had done).
• found that the outcome for failing to respond to communication from Mrs X should be ‘partially upheld’.
• recommended that an apology be provided in writing and in person by a senior manager.
• suggested a leaflet be prepared to explain parental responsibility.
• stated that the Council should explain to Mrs X how learning had been cascaded to all staff.
• recommended that a review process be established to help identify and avoid delay in complaint investigations.
• recommended the Council offered a significantly higher compensation to Mrs X to reflect the way the concerns were dealt with and the emotional impact.
• Stated that Mrs X’s concerns about inaccurate information on the council’s files should be acknowledged and additional information placed on file. (It was agreed during the panel hearing that a transcript be made of Mrs X’s recording of the June 2016 meeting. This should be placed on file and a copy sent to Mrs X).
• That the Council seek to help Mrs X reconnect with her grandchildren.
31. The panels recommendations were accepted by the Council in November 2021. A further letter of apology was sent and an invitation was made to Mrs X to speak to a senior manager. In the letter the Council offered Mrs X £500 to recognise the time and trouble she had been put to and the impact the matter had upon her.

Was there fault by the Council

32. There was fault by the Council in this instance. The independent investigation established that the actions taken by the Council at the outset, were flawed. The panel found the councils actions were excessive and the failure to communicate was fault. It identified other areas of fault as set out above.
33. When complaints are considered through an independent statutory complaint process, we will not reinvestigate all the issues of the complaint, provided we are satisfied the investigation was conducted appropriately. The investigation in this case was conducted proportionately and in sufficient detail. As a result, our investigation focussed on whether the actions recommended to the Council were properly carried out.

Actions the Council took

34. In response to the investigation and the panel findings, the Council has completed most of the recommended actions. It provided us with evidence that it had apologised, created guidance about parental responsibility and introduced a robust system to monitor complaint outcomes. The Council has addressed contact between Mrs X and her grandchildren appropriately.
35. The Council had also implemented practice guidance around communication. However, it had not shared details of this with Mrs X, as recommended. The Council also failed to create a transcript of the June 2016 meeting and place this on file, as agreed. During our investigation Mrs X provided the Council with a further copy of the recording so the Council can complete this action. The failure to complete this was fault.
36. The Council increased the payment offered to Mrs X to reflect the impact of the fault in dealing with the matter to £500. In recognition that some of the agreed actions remained outstanding the Council offered to pay a further £200 in recognition of the further impact. These payments are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for time and trouble and distress payments so I have no grounds to seek higher sums.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within four weeks of my final decision:
38. The Council should write to Mrs X to:
• Send her a copy of the transcript of the June 2016 meeting, and to confirm a copy has been placed on its records as agreed.
• Make the payment of £700 to recognise the time trouble and distress the matter has caused, and the further delay in completing some of the Stage Three panel’s agreed actions.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman