Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her child and failed to carry out correct assessments. Mrs X said this caused her child permanent physical scars, and caused her unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her child when they were in the Council’s care, and failed to carry out correct assessments.
2. Mrs X said this caused her child permanent physical scars, and caused her unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. She said she also had to take unnecessary time off work.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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 to look into the complaint and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
11. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the investigating officer’s report and any report from the independent person. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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

16. In 2022, Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her child when they were in the Council’s care, and failed to carry out correct assessments. This complaint went through the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
17. At stage two, the Investigating Officer upheld or partially upheld all of Mrs X’s points of complaint. The Investigating Officer made three recommendations.
18. The Council’s stage two adjudication disagreed with three of the Investigating Officer’s findings. The Council partially upheld these complaints. The Council said how it would meet two of the Investigating Officer’s recommendations, but it failed to address one recommendation. This recommendation was for the Council’s Adjudicating Officer to meet with Mrs X, the Investigating Officer, and the Independent Person to review the report.
19. The stage three review panel decided that all of Mrs X’s points of complaint should be upheld, not partially upheld. The panel made four recommendations. One of these recommendations was for the Council to offer Mrs X the option of meeting with the Adjudicating Officer to discuss the panel’s findings and recommendations.
20. In its response to the panel’s findings, the Council disagreed that four parts of Mrs X’s complaint should be fully upheld. The Council maintained that these should be partially upheld. The Council met two of the panel’s recommendations but did not say how it would meet the other two recommendations, which included offering a meeting with Mrs X.

Analysis

21. As I have said above, 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. I find the stage two investigation was thorough, well-balanced and proportionate. I find no flaws which call the findings into question.
22. I have considered whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two Investigating Officer and the stage three review panel.
23. I find the Council completed two of the Investigating Officer’s three recommendations. However, the Council did not meet with Mrs X, the Investigating Officer or the Independent Person, as recommended.
24. The Council has provided evidence of how it met three of the review panel’s four recommendations. I am satisfied it has met those recommendations and remedied most of the injustice to Mrs X. However, the Council accepts it did not arrange or offer a meeting with Mrs X as recommended at stages two and three. It said this was an oversight.
25. I find the Council at fault for failing to meet the recommendation made at both stages two and three. This caused Mrs X injustice because it caused uncertainty and frustration.
26. Mrs X told me that she no longer sees the point in meeting with the Council. She said there would be no benefit. For this reason, I will not propose that the Council offers the meeting as it should have done.
27. Mrs X pointed out that the Council’s response to the stage three review panel’s findings was factually inaccurate. I agree. The Council’s response said the Investigating Officer partially upheld a part of Mrs X’s complaint. This was not accurate: the Investigating Officer fully upheld it.
28. The Council said this was an error. While I do not consider this error is significant enough to be fault, it is not good practice.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for failing to offer or arrange a meeting (as recommended at stages two and three), and for the uncertainty and frustration caused by failing to apologise when it should have.
30. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X of £200. This is to remedy the uncertainty and frustration caused by failing to meet this recommendation which was made at both stages two and three.
31. In arriving at this figure, I have taken into account our published guidance on remedies. I have considered the length of time Mrs X waited for the Council to offer or arrange a meeting. I have also considered the level of injustice caused. Taking all factors into account, I consider £200 to be appropriate and proportionate for the level of injustice caused.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Mrs X’s complaint because I find fault causing injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman