Summary: X, Mr W and Ms Y complained the Council failed to fulfil its statutory duty to safeguard and promote X’s welfare. The Ombudsman has not found fault by the Council in the action it took to safeguard and promote X’s welfare but has found fault with its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to reflect the time and trouble this caused.

The complaint

1. I am calling the complainants X, Mr W and Ms Y. Mr W and Ms Y are X’s father and stepmother. The complaint has been brought to us by their representative who I am calling Mr Z.
2. Mr Z complained about the way the Council responded to X’s requests for help as a vulnerable young person, threatened with homelessness. He says the Council failed to carry out the appropriate assessments required to ensure X’s safety and wellbeing.
3. He also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint on X, Mr W and Ms Y’s behalf.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr Z and read the information he and the Council provided about the complaint.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance.
8. I invited Mr Z and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.
9. 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

What I found

What should have happened

The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance

10. Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 (the Act) says local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
11. These duties are set out in the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. When a local authority receives a referral about a child it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. This will include determining whether:

• The child needs immediate protection and urgent action is required.
• The child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Act.
• Any services are required by the child and the family.
• No further action is required.

12. The child and family must be informed of the action the council intends to take.
13. If the decision is the referral needs further assessment, a social worker should see the child as soon as possible. The local authority has a maximum timeframe of 45 days to complete the assessment.
14. Local authorities should develop and publish local protocols for the assessment of children referred to Children’s Services.
15. Section 20 of the Act says local authorities should provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it because:

• there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them
• they have been lost or abandoned
• the person who has been caring for them is prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.

Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures Manual

16. This Manual sets out the Council’s procedure for assessing children referred to its Children’s Service.
17. Section 4.6 of the manual says every child referred into the Council’s Children’s Service should have an individual assessment to determine the thresholds of need, identify their needs and any impact of parental behaviour on them as an individual. And:
1. The social worker and their line manager should decide:

• Is this a child in need (Section 17of the Act)
• Is there reasonable cause to suspect the child us suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (Section 47 of the Act)
• Is the child in need of accommodation (Section 20 of the Act)
• Is the child at risk of suffering significant harm to the point where the local authority needs to initiate the public law outline/care proceedings.
2. The social worker and their line manager will decide the outcome of the assessment which could include:
• No further action
• Additional support which can be provided through services including the Council’s Early Help services
• Child in Need plan to ensure child’s needs are met as per Section 17 general duties
• Emergency action to protect a child.
3. The assessment should be completed, so it is possible to make a decision on the next steps, within a maximum of 45 days from the point of referral.
4. the assessment plan should set out timescales for meeting actions and regular reviews, and the plan must be reviewed if the child’s circumstances change.

Surrey Effective Family Resilience Guidance

18. This is the Council’s published guidance for all practitioners on the levels of need, when working together with children and families to provide early help, targeted and specialist support.
19. The guidance mission statement is promoting the upbringing of children within their birth families and working with those families to ensure children can remain safely at home.
20. It sets out following indicators of need:

• Level 1 – Universal. For children and young people who make good overall progress in most areas of development and receive appropriate universal services
• Level 2 – Early Help. For children and young people whose needs require some additional support
• Level 3 – Targeted Help. For vulnerable children and young people whose needs are more complex.
• Level 4 – Specialist. For children and young people whose needs are complex, enduring and cross many domains.

The complaint procedure

21. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to have a formal representations procedure for complaints about children’s social care. This is the statutory complaints procedure set out in The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations).
22. The statutory complaints procedure has three stages:

• stage one - Local Resolution
• stage two – Investigation by an independent investigator with oversight by an independent person. The timescale for stage two is 25 days (with a maximum extension to 65 days)
• stage three – Review and Panel

23. The 2006 statutory guidance “Getting the Best from Complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children” says:

• Where a complaint is accepted at stage one the complainant is entitled to pursue their complaint further through the procedure.
• If a complaint has entered stage one the local authority is obliged to ensure the complaint proceeds to stages two and three if the complainant requests this.
• Where the complaint is not resolved at stage one the complainant has the right to request consideration of the complaint at stage two.
• The complaints manager should arrange for a full and considered investigation of the complaint to take place without delay.
• The investigating officer should have access to all the relevant records and staff. These should be released within the bounds of normal confidentiality and with regard to the relevant legislation in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998.

What happened

August 2020

24. X was 17 and living with his mother, stepfather, and younger brothers. He attended the Council’s office on 7 August 2020 after his mother threw him out of the home following an argument and referred to the Council’s Children’s Service.
25. The Council’s duty team talked to X, his mother and Mr W, with whom X had not been in contact for some time. X got in touch with Mr W and went to stay with him. The Council’s duty team recorded their concern about difficulties in the home with X’s mother struggling to manage his behaviour. A child and family assessment was required to understand the family dynamics and safeguard X from the risk of homelessness.
26. An assessment was arranged immediately. A Children’s Service social worker spoke to X and to Mr W, who said he was happy to keep X with him for the short term. But he was living with his partner, Ms Y, and daughter in a two bedroom house.
27. The social worker had a meeting with X and his mother at her home, and discussions with all the family.
28. The assessment was completed on 19 August.
1. This said:

• X was staying with his father and reported this was going well but only a temporary arrangement due to lack of space in his father’s home.
• X has a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome which made him a vulnerable young person.
• X’s mother had agreed to work with Targeted Youth Service (TYS) towards having X return to the family home.
2. It recommended:
• X was a child in need as defined by the Children Act 1989
• Both X and his mother wanted him to return to the family home and this would be the best outcome for X. His stepfather needed to engage with the work for X’s return home to be successful.
3. It set out as a plan:
• X needed to return home to his family home.
• TYS would support the family, building bridges and working with X and his family to facilitate his return home.
• the work to be undertaken, from 24 August, including preventing the further risk of family breakdown, increasing understanding of parenting a teenager, building on X’s strengths to help him find employment or further education.

29. The assessment was shared with X, his mother and Mr W. X’s case was stepped down from Level 4 to Level 3 and passed to the Council’s TYS team with the agreed work plan.
30. On 25 August a TYS worker had a meeting with X’s mother at her house and a video call with X. The notes record X’s mother said X could live at home again, provided he respected the rules. But she and the family were planning to move away at some point. X said he wanted to return home, as he could not stay permanently with Mr W, but did not want to move away from the local area.

September 2020

31. Ms Y contacted the TYS worker on 1 September. She said they wanted Children’s Services to find X somewhere else to live because Mr W was struggling having X in the house and sleeping in the living room.
32. The TYS worker referred to a Children’s Service Homelessness Prevention Adviser (HPA). On 10 September she and the HPA visited X and discussed the situation with X and Ms Y. The notes record they explained the Council was trying to promote family resilience and a child’s best interest was staying with family. X felt it was a waste of time going back to his mother’s house when she was moving away. The HPA suggested the family contact the local housing authority about housing for X when he reached 18. Ms Y said they could convert an outbuilding into a bedroom for X if he wanted to stay with them. It was agreed X and Ms Y would talk to Mr W about this, and Ms Y would talk to the local housing authority about X joining their waiting list.
33. Ms Y told the TYS worker later that day, Mr W had agreed to convert the outbuilding into a bedroom, if they could get funding, so X would have a permanent home with them. In another message on 15 September, Miss Y said there was nothing in her tenancy stopping her having a shed for someone to live in, she would apply for planning permission and keep the TYS worker updated.
34. The TYS worker visited X again on 17 September. They discussed his mother’s move at the end of October. The TYS worker took X to visit his mother on 24 September.

October 2020

35. The TYS worker’s planned visit to X on 1 October was cancelled by the family. On 5 October Ms Y told the TYS worker she had helped X collect his things from his mother’s house. It was agreed the social worker’s next planned home visit would be re-arranged so X could spend more time with his mother.
36. Ms Y contacted the TYS worker on 7 October. X’s mother had moved away early and he had not been able to see her before she left. Ms Y also said she was struggling with the situation. There had been some tense moments in the house over the last few months. She asked for information about Asperger’s. The TYS worker arranged a home visit for 15 October.
37. Ms Y approached Mr Z for help with the situation. He wrote to TYS on 5 October. He said X was living with Mr W and Ms Y, but the property was overcrowded and X was sofa-surfing. The family was looking at adapting an outbuilding as a bedroom for X. Mr Z asked the Council what action it was taking to fulfil its duty to promote and safeguard X’s welfare under S17.
38. The TYS worker’s line manager reviewed Mr Z’s letter and noted X was staying with father and his family, Although there was limited physical space, the family were clear they were supporting X and he can stay. Youth homelessness advisor had been involved re options. They understood family’s wish was to develop space to make a suitable bedroom. No S17 assessment as no safeguarding issues requiring escalation.
39. The TYS worker visited X and Ms Y on 15 October. They discussed job opportunities, further education and income issues. And Ms Y’s request for information about Asperger’s.
40. On 16 October the TYS worker’s manager discussed X’s situation with the HPA. Their understanding was Mr W was willing to have X and planned to make a safe living space for him. Parents looking after their children was the first port of call on a housing issue. The HPA’s view was Mr W had parental responsibility, had agreed to accommodate so X was not homeless or at risk of homelessness. The idea, on her last visit, was to convert the outhouse into a bedroom for X. Until then, X was sleeping on the sofa but not “sofa surfing” as he was being accommodated by a parent and wanted to remain there.
41. The manager noted X’s referral had been stepped down from Level 4 and did not meet the child in need threshold. X was not homeless and was not sofa surfing. He was staying with a parent and no safeguarding issues had been raised so far. The purpose of the Level 3 TYS intervention was to support the family situation and prevent breakdown.
42. The TYS worker spoke to Ms Y on 22 October. The note says Ms Y was upset and overwhelmed. The notes of the TYS worker and Ms Y’s contact from 27 October show the situation at home was deteriorating, there had been a very difficult couple of days and Mr W was not coping with X. The situation was causing arguments between Ms Y and Mr W.
43. The TYS worker visited on 29 October. Ms Y said Mr W wanted the Council to remove X from the house or he would be left on the street. Mr W refused to discuss the situation with the TYS worker. It was agreed with Ms Y, X would stay with them that night and spend the weekend at a friend’s house. A further home visit was arranged for 2 November.
44. A manager reviewed the position on 29 October and noted there was a risk of homelessness. Mr W and Ms Y said X could no longer stay with them. The action plan was to speak to the family about boundaries, support for X with education/job, discussion with the HPA, a joint visit and exploring family connections.

November 2020

45. The manager and the HPA visited X, Mr W and Ms Y on 2 November. The meeting record says:

• Parents’ view – Mr W can’t provide the best support for X when he doesn’t have a suitable space for him. X has Asperger’s and needs his own space.
• There had been arguments because X had not followed the minimum rules
• The living room where X sleeps is a family communal space and where Ms Y works.
• Mr W had agreed to provide temporary, not permanent, accommodation for X. They looked into converting an outhouse into a bedroom but the high cost meant this was not a suitable option.
• The Council needed to find accommodation for X as soon as possible as he would need to leave the house tomorrow.
• X would like to have his own space, his own bedroom, somewhere nearby so he could visit Mr W and Ms Y.
• There were no options for X to stay with other family or friends

46. The TYS worker told Ms Y they were contacting the Children’s Service assessment team, but the family would need to continue to support X with accommodation in the meantime.
47. On 5 November an officer from Children’s Services safeguarding team spoke to Ms Y and Mr W. The call note says they appreciated the family’s difficulties but needed to complete an assessment to understand the level of support X needed. An assessment would usually take about four weeks. Mr W and Ms Y agreed X could stay a further seven days if the assessment started immediately and X was provided with daily activity outside the home.
48. A Children’s Services social worker met X, Mr W and Ms Y on 9 November to discuss the situation as part of the assessment. The meeting record says:

• They agreed the utility area was not suitable and the option of an insulated outbuilding for X to sleep in was thought to be too costly.
• The alternative was supported accommodation for X which required approval from a senior manager. This was X’s preference.
• The last option, which they wanted to avoid, would be X going into care. This would be damaging to family relationships and X was nearly 18.
• It was agreed the social worker would explore the possibility of supported accommodation.
• The aim was to encourage X to remain part of the family network either in the family home or supported accommodation.

49. The Council’s records show it considered a request for urgent supported accommodation. Approval was given on 13 November for an offer of supported accommodation under Section 17 of the Act. This was on the basis Mr W and Ms Y said X could no longer live with them, meaning he could face homelessness, and X did not want to go into foster care.
50. An assessment with a supported accommodation provider was arranged for 20 November. Following the assessment, X was offered a supported living placement and moved in on 23 November.

The Council’s complaint handling

51. Mr Z did not receive a response from the Council to his letter of 5 October. On 22 October he made a formal complaint to the Council about its failure to reply. He also said no action had been taken as sought in his previous letter and the Council had not complied with its statutory duty.
52. After X’s consent for Mr Z to act on his behalf had been provided, the Council issued its response. It confirmed stage one of the complaints procedure had been completed and said:

• X’s case was being dealt with by its TYS service. The TYS worker undertook their role as they should have and worked with the family to help avoid a homelessness situation
• The issue of potential homelessness had been appropriately raised by TYS with Children’s Social Care. A social worker from this team had contacted the family to arrange an assessment

53. Mr Z was not satisfied with the response. He told the Council on 27 November they had not dealt with the delays, poor case management, failure to engage with X’s situation or communicate with the family. He asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the statutory complaint procedure. He also made a Subject Access Request on the family’s behalf.
54. On 9 December the Council told Mr Z it agreed Mr W and Ms Y’s complaint would be investigated under the statutory complaint procedure. But it would need to establish X’s views. It would arrange for a social worker to speak to X about this. And it would appoint an Independent Officer (IO) and Independent Person for the investigation. It also told Mr Z on 11 December, the 65 day investigation timescale would start from the date the complaint details were agreed with the IO.
55. The IO told Mr Z she would be away until 12 January 2021 but would arrange a meeting as soon as possible on her return. She contacted Mr Z on 13 January 2021 and asked if he was ready to proceed. The Council had not yet processed Mr Z’s SAR. It said it required further identification documents before doing so. Mr Z told the IO he was still wating for the information from his SAR.
56. On 25 January Mr Z asked the IO what was happening with his SAR and what she had done so far regarding her investigation. The IO told Mr Z it was not her role to deal with the SAR.She had not started her investigation as she was still waiting for confirmation he was ready to proceed.
57. The IO resigned her appointment on 27 January. The Council initially told Mr Z it would appoint another IO but on 29 January it said:

• It would not complete the SAR until it had received the information requested.
• He had misunderstood the role of the Independent Person, the complaint process, and SAR legislation.
• His contact about these points was unreasonably persistent.
• As such the Council was not prepared to continue with the complaint investigation
• It would wait to hear from us (Mr Z had indicated he would refer his complaint to us if the Council did not meet his requests).

58. Mr Z brought the complaint to us in February 2021.
59. On 30 March 2021 the Council told us it had decided to discontinue the complaint investigation because of Mr Z’s unreasonable persistence.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s complaint handling

60. The statutory guidance says the timescale for stage two investigation is 25 days with a maximum extension to 65 days. There is no evidence an extension was agreed. In my view the Council was wrong to tell Mr Z the investigation period was 65 days. It was also wrong to tell him the investigation period started from the date the complaint details were agreed with the IO. The statutory guidance says stage two starts when requested by the complainant. I consider this was fault by the Council.
61. Mr Z appears to have been under the impression he needed to provide the IO with information for the investigation. This was one of the reasons he was concerned about the delay with the SAR. I have not seen any evidence showing the Council explained to Mr Z, under the statutory guidance, the Council should provide the IO with access to all the relevant records and staff. I consider this communication failure was fault by the Council. My view is these faults by the Council, in providing incorrect information about timescales and failing to properly explain the process contributed to the breakdown in the complaint process.
62. But in any event, this was X, Mr W and Ms Y’s complaint, not Mr Z’s complaint. The statutory guidance makes it clear X had a right to request a stage two investigation, and the Council was required to arrange this. The Council has told us it contacted X who did not express any wish to participate in the complaint process. But it accepts it did not ask Mr W and Ms Y whether they wanted to continue with their complaint without Mr Z’s involvement. I consider this was fault by the Council.
63. In my view the Council’s faults in handling X, Mr W and Ms Y’s complaint caused them injustice. They lost the opportunity to have their complaint considered promptly by an independent person at a local level. Instead, they have been put to time and trouble arranging for Mr Z to bring their complaint to us.
64. But rather than referring the complaint back to the Council for a stage two investigation now, I consider it is more expedient to complete our investigation of X, Mr W and Ms Y’s substantive complaint.

Complaint the Council failed to fulfil its statutory duty to safeguard and promote X’s welfare

65. I have considered the action taken by the Council’s Children Service and TYS Service over the period from August to November 2020.
66. Following X’s referral on 7 August, a social worker completed an assessment of X’s needs in accordance with the statutory guidance and the Council’s procedure. The Children’s Service team made decisions about the level of X’s needs and a plan to meet these. The plan – X would stay with Mr W and Ms Y on a temporary basis while TYS worked with X, his mother and their family to enable him to return to live with them – was agreed with X, his mother, Mr W and Ms Y.
67. The assessment was shared with X, his mother and Mr W. I consider the Council took appropriate action, in accordance with its statutory duties, statutory guidance and its own procedure, to assess, and plan to meet, X’s needs. I do not find fault by the Council regarding the action taken at this stage.
68. TYS began working with X, his mother, Mr W and Ms Y as agreed in the plan. The situation changed from about mid-September. As X’s mother was moving away at the end of October and X did not want to leave the area, the original plan was no longer viable. But records of the TYS worker’s discussions with X and Ms Y confirm Mr W, Ms Y now wanted to provide X with suitable permanent accommodation at their home, by converting an outbuilding, so he could continue to live with them.
69. The evidence shows the TYS worker was in regular contact with X, Ms Y and the family throughout the period from 25 August to November 2020. She provided support regarding income issues, job opportunities and courses, worked with X and his mother and had regular meetings and discussions with X and Ms Y about the family and accommodation situation. Input and further support was obtained from the HPA and there were reviews by a TYS manager.
70. The records show TYS’s understanding was, there were some difficulties because of the current living arrangements, but Mr W and Ms Y agreed X would continue to stay with them while they were looking at how to provide the additional long-term space for him. I do not consider there was fault by the Council in the way the TYS team worked to support X, Mr W and Ms Y during the period from August to the end of October 2020.
71. Based on the information I have seen, towards the end of October it became clear Mr W was struggling with the situation, this was causing serious difficulties within the family and there was a risk X would not be able to continue to live there and would become homeless.
72. The TYS team took immediate action to meet and discuss the situation with X, Mr W and Ms Y, with the support of the HPA, and referred the case to Children’s Services. The case was reviewed by the Safeguarding Team. They agreed with Mr W and Ms Y, X would continue to stay with them, while the Children’s Service completed the assessment on an urgent basis, with daily support for X in the meantime. The assessment was completed, reviewed promptly and a decision made to offer X supported accommodation under Section 17 of the Act.
73. I do not consider there was fault in the action taken by the Council to assess and meet X’s needs and support Mr W and Ms Y in response to the risk of X becoming homeless during the period from the end of October until X moved into supported accommodation.
74. Because of family circumstances, X found himself in a difficult situation in August 2020, which led to him coming to live with Mr W and Ms Y. I appreciate further issues arose due to their limited living accommodation. But, for the reasons explained above, I do not agree the Council failed to fulfil its statutory duty to safeguard and promote X’s welfare during this period.

Back to top

Agreed action

75. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to X, Mr W and Ms Y for failing to arrange a stage two investigation of their complaint.
• Pay X, Mr W and Ms Y £100 each to reflect their time and trouble bringing the complaint to us.
• These figures are a symbolic amount based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.

76. And within three months of the date of our final decision, provide us with evidence it has shared a copy of this decision with complaint managers to capture learning from it and reminded staff how they should follow the statutory complaint procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I have not found fault by the Council in the action taken to safeguard and promote X’s welfare. I have found fault with its complaints handling, causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman