Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to uphold her complaints about the failure to provide her with support as a young care leaver. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it carried out a thorough, evidence-based investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman cannot add anything to what has already been decided during this process.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to provide her with support as a young care leaver. In particular, she complains about the Council’s failure to:
1. allow her to access her leaving care grant;
2. provide her with a permanent place to live;
3. protect her belongings;
4. acknowledge and respond to some of her complaints; and
5. provide appropriate support, including therapy for her past trauma.
2. She says the Council’s actions have affectively re-traumatised her and severely affected her mental health. She has struggled to improve her situation because of a lack of permanent accommodation and having to replace her personal possessions several times. She also lost items of significant sentimental value, causing further distress. She wants the Council to take accountability for its actions and compensate her for her losses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)

The Ombudsman’s approach to complaints investigated under the statutory procedure

5. The Ombudsman’s approach to this type of complaint is generally to review how the complaint has been handled at each stage, ensure any identified injustice has been appropriately addressed, and that any recommendations arising from the investigation have been implemented.
6. In most cases we will not reinvestigate the actual, substantive complaints. This is because the complaints will have already been competently investigated by an independent IO, and their findings reviewed by an independent panel. Under such circumstances, there is no real possibility further investigation will produce a significantly different outcome, and we do not consider it proportionate to provide a further level of investigation at public expense.
7. The exception to this is where there is evidence of a fundamental flaw in the procedure. By fundamental flaw, we mean an error which is so serious there may have been a substantially different outcome, had it not occurred. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman may decide to re-investigate part or all of the substantive complaint.
8. But the Ombudsman does not, and cannot, provide complainants with a right of appeal against decisions they disagree with. We do not make our own findings on issues which require expert, professional judgement, and nor do we substitute the findings of council officers with our own. While we may criticise councils where they have made administrative faults, this does not mean we can make operational decisions on their behalf.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated what happened from May 2021 until May 2024. This covers the period of time investigated under the statutory complaints procedure up to when Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
10. Since making her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X has raised further issues, specifically around her accommodation and setting up home grant. I have not investigated these matters because the Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider them under its complaints procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information provided by Miss X and the Council.
12. I considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy.
13. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and Council policy

Leaving care support

14. The Children Act 1989 places duties on councils to provide ongoing support for children leaving care. These duties continue until they reach age 21. If the council is helping them with education and training, the duty continues until age 25 or to the end of the agreed training (which can take them beyond their 25th birthday).
15. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser, and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal adviser will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. Plans should include specific actions and deadlines detailing who will take what action and when. They should be reviewed at least every six months by a social worker.
16. Pathway plans should continue for all care leavers continuing in education or training. The plan should include details of the practical and financial support the council will provide.
17. The guidance accompanying the Act says that when young people leave their care placement the council must ensure their new home is suitable for their needs and linked to their wider plans and aspirations.

Future First

18. The Council’s “Future First” service supports young people who were previously looked after children up to the age of 25. A young person is assigned a personal advisor who will assist the young person with housing, education, training, employment.
19. Financial support may be available including a setting up home grant and contribution towards driving lessons.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

20. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
21. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
22. At stage 2 of the procedure, councils must appoint an investigating officer (IO) to carry out the investigation. The IO should be entirely independent from the council. There will also be an independent person (IP), who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. After the IO and IP have produced their reports, a adjudication officer (AO), a senior manager, considers them and prepares the councils response to the findings. This is the referred to as the adjudication.
23. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review by an independent panel (the Panel). The Panel’s role is to determine whether there were any flaws in the stage 2 investigation.
24. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:

• 10 days at stage one (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or additional time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage two (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to request a Review Panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage three;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the council to respond to the findings.

What happened

25. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.

Background information

26. Miss X is now 25 years old. She was previously a looked after child and so entitled to receive leaving care support from the Council. She was assigned a personal advisor and had a pathway plan that set out several objectives to enable Miss X to transition into adulthood. For several years, she was dissatisfied with support that was offered by the Council.

Events leading to Miss X’s complaint

27. In May 2021, there was a fire at Miss X’s home (Property A). Miss X was moved to alternative, temporary accommodation. Unfortunately, due to fire and water damage, the Council says it was not possible to salvage Miss X’s personal possessions. Miss X disagreed and believed the Council failed in its duty to protect her belongings, some of which were irreplaceable for sentimental reasons.
28. In November 2021, the Council removed Miss X from its housing register because of concerns about anti-social behaviour and her inability to manage a tenancy. Instead, she was assessed as needing supported accommodation. Miss X strongly opposed this assessment and continues to do so.
29. Between December 2021 and December 2022, Miss X was provided what has been described as a “training flat” arranged by Future First (Property B). This was intended to be short term, emergency accommodation. The Council says Miss X refused several offers of alternative accommodation and refused to leave when asked to do so. Miss X disputes this, saying the Council’s choices of accommodation were unsuitable.
30. In December 2022, Miss X was detained under the Mental Health Act for several months. Upon her discharge from hospital, the Council provided supported accommodation (Property C), under the Care Act due to her care and support needs.
31. Miss X was evicted from Property C in November 2023, due to anti-social behaviour and non-engagement with support that was available to her. She was provided with temporary accommodation until the May 2024 when the Council withdrew funding due to Miss X’s continued non-engagement.
32. Miss X then made a homelessness application to a neighbouring Council where she was placed in temporary accommodation.

Miss X’s complaint

33. In August 2022, Miss X complained to the Council about:
1. the location of Property B due to its unsafe location;
2. the failure to provide suitable, non-supported accommodation;
3. disposal of personal items; and
4. lack of support generally.
34. Her complaint was dealt with under the statutory, three-stage complaints procedure.
35. Her complaint was not upheld at stage one. In summary the Council said:
1. Miss X did not advise the Council about the potential risk of the location of Property C. It was sourced in an emergency situation following Miss X’s discharge from hospital;
2. Miss X was assessed as requiring care and support under the Care Act 2014 and so was offered supported accommodation. All professionals agreed that Miss X was neither ready or able to manage a tenancy and its associated responsibilities. By way of evidence, the Council provided photographs taken by the police when they attended the property in September 2022; and
3. it was not possible to salvage Miss X’s property following the fire in Property A. Photographic evidence was provided showing rooms not affected by the fire but in a cluttered and neglected condition.
36. Miss X asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two and made several further complaints. The Council appointed an IO and IP. Some complaints were not included, either because they had previously been investigated or were related to Miss X’s care and support needs as an adult, as opposed to leaving care support.
37. Following discussions between the IO and Miss X, “Terms of Reference” were agreed. This set out the scope of IO’s investigation. Miss X complained the Council:
1. placed her in unsuitable accommodation because it was close to her abusive uncle;
2. failed to include her in decisions about her accommodation;
3. failed to secure her personal possessions after she left two properties;
4. failed to support her learning to drive;
5. failed to support her with transport to appointments;
6. failed to allow her to access her setting up home grant;
7. refused to speak to her on occasions and provide her with a specific item whilst in hospital; and
8. failed to support her with external counselling.
38. All but one part of Miss X’s complaint was not upheld by the IO. The IO determined it was not possible to either prove or disprove whether a social worker had constantly put the phone down during conversations.
39. Both the AO and IP agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. The AO also agreed with the IO’s recommendation for the Council to consider options available to Miss X to allow her to access any remaining setting up home grant. The AO offered to meet with Miss X to discuss the complaint response and answer any questions.
40. Instead, Miss X requested her complaint be escalated to stage three. The Panel agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IO, IP and AO on all but one part of the complaint. It amended the conclusion about the social worker putting the phone down to “no finding”. Miss X told the Panel she did not want to meet with the AO.
41. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the decision not to uphold her complaint was wrong and some areas of complaint were not investigated. She also claimed the Council had acted in a racially discriminatory way.

Analysis

42. As I explained previously, with complaints of this type, we will only reinvestigate the substantive matters where we consider there is evidence of one or more fundamental flaws in how the statutory complaints procedure was carried out.
43. Having reviewed all the case records and information provided by Miss X, I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how her complaint was investigated.
44. I say this for the following reasons.

• The Council escalated Miss X’s complaint at each stage when requested by Miss X.
• It appointed an independent IO and IP to conduct stage two and an independent Panel for stage three.
• The reasons that parts of her complaint were not investigated were valid and explained to Miss X.
• Miss X participated in both the stage two investigation and remotely attended the Panel hearing. I am satisfied Miss X was able to express her views throughout the process.
• Both stage two and stage three were followed by an adjudication letter that explained why the Council had accepted the recommendations of the IP and the Panel.
• Both the IO and IP had access to the Council’s records. The IO interviewed relevant staff.
• The IO’s report included detailed notes from the interviews she conducted and referenced the relevant case records that supported her findings. Miss X provided the Ombudsman with evidence she says proves the Council was aware of a risk to her safety by a particular location. This was an extract from a previous IO investigation report that referred to Miss X being the victim of assault in 2017. I disagree with Miss X’s conclusion because it was the Council’s role to assess current risk, which was not necessarily the same as a risk that was posed several years ago. The case records I have seen supported the conclusion reached by the IO that the social workers were not aware of any current risk to Miss X, primarily because Miss X did not object to the property for this reason.

45. One of the recommendations from the Panel was for a senior officer to meet with Miss X to discuss the complaint to attempt a resolution. I understand this has not happened. I do not find this was because of fault by the Council. The case records clearly evidence the Council has, over many years, attempted to engage with Miss X and offer appropriate support. I am satisfied, if Miss X wanted such a meeting to go ahead, this would have been arranged. Miss X also told the Panel she had ongoing issues with (amongst other things) accommodation and accessing her setting up home grant. However, Miss X told the Panel a meeting with a senior manager was not something she wanted to participate in.
46. Paragraph 24 above sets out the relevant timescales. Although the stage two investigation and adjudication took longer than 65 working days, I am satisfied that the additional complaints submitted by Miss X after she asked for her complaint to be escalated justified the Council taking longer than usual. For this reason, I have not found the Council to be at fault.
47. My overall conclusion is that I do not have any grounds to find the Council’s investigation was fundamentally flawed. Instead, I am satisfied it was robustly undertaken and drew logical findings from the evidence available. Under these circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the substantive complaints, because there is no reason to believe we would make substantially different findings.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I did not find the Council to be at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman