Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal with her concerns about an eye condition, delayed seeking treatment for it and failed to ensure she had an ID and passport causing distress. Ms X complains the Council has not offered an appropriate financial remedy after considering and upholding most of her complaints through the statutory children’s complaints process. We consider the findings of the Council’s investigation were fair and appropriate. The Council has already made service improvements. The Council has agreed to our recommendation for a revised financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s avoidable distress caused by the Council’s faults.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Ms X. She complains the Council failed to deal with her concerns about an eye condition and delayed seeking treatment to correct it. Ms X also complains the Council failed to ensure she had an ID and passport which prevented her going on school trips and being able to work.
2. Ms X considers the Council has not offered an appropriate financial remedy after considering and upholding most of her complaints through the statutory children’s complaints process. Ms X says the Council’s failings have caused her distress and impacted onto her mental 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 considered the information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with the relevant law and guidance.
7. Ms 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

Law and administrative background

Council duties to Looked After Children

8. A Looked After Child is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a council. The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order. The child becomes looked after when the council has accommodated them for a continuous period of longer than 24 hours. (Children Act 1989, section 20)
9. Councils have a general duty when looking after a child to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. This duty underpins all activity by the council in relation to looked after children. This duty has become known as ‘corporate parenting’. In simple terms, ‘corporate parenting’ means the collective responsibility of the council, elected members, employees, and partner agencies, for providing the best possible care and safeguarding for the children who are looked after by the council. (Children Act 1989, section 22 and Applying corporate parenting principles to looked after children and care leavers Statutory Guidance 2018)

Statutory complaints process

10. 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.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

Background

14. What follows is a brief summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Ms X came to the UK as a young child with her family. Ms X was taken into care by the Council in 2018 and it gained a full care order for her, so she became a looked after child. Ms X lived with several foster carers. Ms X confirms she has a medical condition affecting an eye which can cause it to turn outwards.
16. In September 2021 professionals involved with Ms X raised concerns about Ms X’s actions regarding her eye condition. The Council arranged for Ms X to be seen by CAMHS. And then an Ophthalmologist appointment in 2022 about her eye.
17. In 2022 Ms X complained to the Council it did not meet many aspects of her needs as a looked after child. This related to issues such as her leave to remain application, getting a passport, understanding her medical condition, supporting her well-being and the looked after child review process. Ms X expressed concerns about the lack of action by her previous social worker, Officer B and alleged the officer made inappropriate comments to her.
18. The Council responded to Ms X at stage of 1 the statutory complaints procedure. The Council upheld a few of Ms X’s concerns but did not uphold her overall complaint.

Stage 2 complaint

19. Ms X asked to go to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The Council appointed an Independent Officer (“IO”) and Independent Person (“IP”) to carry out the investigation into Ms X’s complaints. The IO and IP met with Ms X to agree her statement of complaint. It contained 10 individual concerns relating to Ms X’s complaints about a lack of passport, ID, action by social workers and treatment for her eye condition. Ms X wanted the Council to arrange a change of name for her, to have a passport, understand why actions were not completed, an apology, an understanding of her eye condition and financial compensation.
20. The IO and IP interviewed officers involved with Ms X’s care and considered relevant Council’s records and documents.
21. The IO and IP completed their investigation reports into Ms X’s complaints. The IO upheld significant elements of Ms X’s complaint. The IP agreed with the findings.
22. The IO concluded:
• Ms X had been given leave to remain status in 2018 so the Council could have applied for her to have a passport because it had parental responsibility. The IO acknowledged Ms X’s lack of engagement at times but found the Council had not made any real progress. The IO considered there had been excessive drift and delay by the Council in getting Ms X a passport during the five years she had been in care. The IO upheld the complaint.
• The Council also delayed in obtaining ID for Ms X which impacted on her getting a passport, applying for finances and education placement/bursaries. The IO upheld the complaint.
• The IO found health records showed Ms X had an eye operation when young before becoming a looked after child, but her family had taken no further action. The IO found evidence of regular LAC reviews/health reviews and optician appointments for Ms X organised by the Council once she became a looked after child. The reviews and optician appointments did not raise any concerns about her eye condition. The IO found the Council had acted when concerns were raised about Ms X in 2021 about the eye condition and the correct health information was available. So did not find the Council at fault. But the IO had concerns about the transfer of information between social workers on reallocating the case on Ms X’s views about her eye condition as Officer B was unaware. The IO partially upheld the complaint.
• From the evidence the IO could not prove or disprove Ms X’s complaint she had not received minutes of the LAC reviews until she complained in 2022.
• The actions from the LAC reviews such as the passport, bank account and ID had not been completed in a timely way by the social worker. The IO upheld the complaint.
• From the evidence the IO could not prove or disprove Ms X’s complaints alleging Officer B made inappropriate comments to her or the officer failed to respond to Ms X’s messages.
• Officer B had failed to progress Ms X’s request for funding for a biometric card funding. And to update Ms X on an investigation by a Local Authority Designated Officer (who deals with safeguarding) following and incident during Ms X’s stay in hospital. The IO upheld the complaint.
• The evidence did not support Ms X’s complaint Officer B had failed to action Ms X’s wish to change her name. The Council explained its concerns and impact on Ms X’s mental health by doing so.
• There were unforeseen reasons an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) could not act in a timely way to action a participation officer for Ms X. But the Council failed to have any oversight of the matter in the IRO’s absence. The IO upheld the complaint.
• The evidence did not support Ms X’s complaint that Officer B’s manager responded for her making it harder to get a reply from the officer and the manager sent many emails. The IO did not uphold the complaint.
• The Police posted a photograph of Ms X online following an incident with Ms X which Ms X wanted removing. The IO found Officer B had acted but ultimately it was for the police to remove it. The IO did not uphold the complaint that Officer B had failed to get the photograph removed.
• Ms X could not access her records because of lacking ID and the matter had not been resolved. The IO upheld the complaint.
• The Council had delayed referring Ms X to the Independent Visitor service who befriend and visit a child or young person living in the care of the Council. The IO upheld the complaint.
23. The IO recommended to the Council it:
• Consider a reminder to all social workers, team managers and IRO’s of the importance of recording key information that is important to a looked after child. So, a future allocated worker would have it easily to hand.
• Consider if it has appropriate policies in place for updating potential/alleged victims and refers for LADO investigation.
• Urgently and with Ms X’s engagement it seeks to provide her with a passport on the basis she has leave to remain and appoint an immigration solicitor.
• Apologise to Ms X for the upheld or partially upheld parts of her complaint. The IO considered it ‘significant in terms of the 5-year delay in obtaining passport or ID’.
• To consider a financial remedy to Ms X in line with our guidance for the time and trouble and stress caused to Ms X about the investigated areas of her complaint. The IO said the Council should consider ‘the demonstrable impact the delays in getting ID have had on Ms X’.
• Consider a way for Ms X to access her records through the Council as her corporate parent.
• Review the subject access procedures that need photo ID for children who are known to the Council and are looked after by it.
24. The Council considered the report by the IO and IP and accepted the conclusions and recommendations in full. The Council drew up an action plan for review and completion within a set timeframe.
25. It apologised for the upheld or partially upheld elements of Ms X’s complaint. The Council said it would consider all learning from the complaint at its Performance, Quality, and Improvement Board (PQI). This includes the importance of recording key information and learning from the delay in obtaining a passport. This has recently been considered by the PQI Board. The Council has reviewed its policies about the LADO service and procedures for a social worker to verify a young person’s ID. It has a draft Information Sharing Protocol in place now and a social worker can now verify a young person’s ID. The Council acknowledged Ms X had recently been able to access her records and it agreed to follow up gaining Ms X’s passport.
26. The Council says it solicitors are supporting Ms X to apply for a passport.
27. The Council considered the recommendation to make a financial payment to Ms X in line with our Guidance on Remedies. It offered Ms X £300 in recognition of the significant time and trouble she had been put to in raising her complaint and the delays experienced. The Council also offered Ms X a payment of £300 in recognition of the stress caused through the difficulties she experienced in the delay in obtaining her passport and ID and the impact this has had on her.

Stage 3 of the complaint procedure

28. We would normally expect a complainant to complete the statutory complaints procedure and move to the stage 3 review panel if they remained unhappy with the Council’s stage 2 response. If a complainant had not done so we would consider the complaint premature and refer it to the Council to arrange a stage 3 hearing.
29. Ms X asked the Council for a review panel hearing. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the final offer made by the Council as she considered it had been ‘medically negligent’ over seeking treatment for her eye condition. However, the Council declined Ms X’s request for a review panel hearing. This was due to the IO and Council largely upholding all the aspects of Ms X’s complaint with responses to her desired outcomes. The Council did not consider a stage 3 panel would be able to consider the issues raised. This was particularly around Ms X’s allegation she held the Council responsible for failing to treat her eye condition much sooner.
30. We have therefore agreed to exercise discretion in this case and consider it as an early referral without completing the statutory complaints procedure.

Analysis

31. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. After reviewing all documents, I am satisfied there does not appear to be obvious flaw in the investigation process that would undermine the conclusions reached. The reports show Ms X’s complaints were appropriately considered.
32. The stage 2 investigation identified a number of faults and failings especially in gaining a passport and ID for Ms X. The Council has drawn up an action plan and largely completed the agreed elements of the plan although obtaining a passport is being dealt with. So, I consider it unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome for Ms X apart from the financial payment offered by the Council.
33. In my view the Council’s offer of £300 in recognition of the significant time and trouble she had been put to in raising her complaint and the delays experienced is appropriate. However, I do not consider the Council’s offer of £300 in recognition of the stress caused through the difficulties Ms X experienced in the delay in obtaining her passport and ID and the impact this has had on her is sufficient. The Council agreed with the IO’s recommendations which advised the Council needed to take account of the ‘significant impact’ of those delays. The Council’s failure to obtain a passport and ID for Ms X during her five years in its care is fault. Ms X has said it prevented her going on school trips and being able to find employment. This has caused her avoidable emotional stress, uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience.
34. Our Guidance on Remedies normally recommends a payment for distress of up to £500, although there is scope for higher where circumstances suggest it should. Considering the level of injustice to Ms X, her vulnerability, and delays by the Council I consider it should pay Ms X a higher amount of £500. This is an appropriate amount and in line with our guidance.
35. Our recommended payments are symbolic, not purely financial. However, if Ms X is seeking financial compensation against the Council for being ‘medical negligent’, this would need to be pursued through the courts. It is not our role to assess such negligence or award compensation.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. To remedy the injustice outlined above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Pay Ms X £300 in recognition of the significant time and trouble she had been put to in raising her complaint and the delays experienced.
• Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of the stress caused through the difficulties she experienced in the delay in obtaining her passport and ID and the impact this has had on her.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was fault with the Council causing injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed with the recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman