Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to complete a stage two investigation under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council’s failure to complete the investigation within the legal timescales has caused Ms X frustration and left her without answers to her complaint. We recommend and the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to recognise the injustice to her and complete the investigation without further delay. The Council should also review its approach to stage two investigations to prevent future delays.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to complete a stage two investigation into her complaint within the statutory timescale. She says the Council ignored her requests for updates. Ms X says she has been put to time and trouble trying to ensure the Council is not repeating its previous faults and that her daughter receives the support she needs. She would like the Council to ensure it has implemented recommendations from the Ombudsman’s previous investigations, to learn from its faults and to compensate her and her daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint made by Ms X and the documents she provided.
5. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
6. I took account of the Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Are we getting the best from children’s social care complaints?’ published in March 2015 and guide for practitioners published in March 2021.
7. Ms X and the Council were invited to comment on the draft decision. All comments were considered before making a final decision.
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this final decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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 should complete investigations within five weeks of the date of request, with an option to extend the investigation up to 13 weeks.
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. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

14. In November 2019, the Ombudsman issued a decision in a previous complaint from Ms X. The Council agreed to produce an action plan setting out measures it intended to take to ensure it met statutory deadlines for responding to complaints.
15. In June 2020, the Council provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its action plan. This said the Council would:
• set reminders to chase open stage two investigations fortnightly;
• include information about the timeliness of open stage two investigations in its monthly reports to senior officers;
• deliver training to staff; and
• explore the possibility of commissioning investigators from outside the Council.
16. In November 2021, the Ombudsman issued a decision in response to another complaint from Ms X. This recommended the Council complete its stage two investigation and pay Ms X £250 to acknowledge its delays in dealing with her complaint. The Council agreed.
17. Based on the date the Ombudsman issued this decision, the five-week deadline for completing the investigation was 6 December 2021. The extended 13-week deadline for completing the investigation was 3 February 2022.
18. A member of staff, who was the third investigating officer appointed in this case, met with Ms X on 9 November to agree the terms of her complaint. Ms X immediately provided information which had been requested from her.
19. On 9 December, the Council’s complaints service sought an update from the investigating officer and independent person. The independent person said they had contacted the investigating officer but had not had a response, and no interviews with staff had been arranged.
20. On 17 December, the investigating officer told the Council’s complaints service they would be leaving the Council in the new year. Notes from the complaints service on 21 December say the investigating officer had told the service they intended to leave when they were asked to undertake the role of investigating officer. The investigating officer said they had reviewed the case records but had not made any further progress and they had no notes to pass to a new investigating officer. The investigating officer said they had spoken to two heads of service to ask if another officer could take on the investigation. The complaints service said it would need to source a new investigating officer and would need to let Ms X know.
21. By mid-January 2022, the Council had not identified an internal member of staff to take on the role of investigating officer. The investigating officer advised the complaints service that a full case file audit had been completed but no interviews had been arranged. The investigating officer left the Council on 31 January.
22. The complaints service contacted a deputy director to provide them with an update on the case and ask for a service manager to take on the investigation. The service followed this up two weeks later as it received no response.
23. In early February, the Council wrote to Ms X to say the investigating officer had left the Council before completing their investigation. It said it was looking to appoint another officer as soon as possible. Ms X contacted the Ombudsman.
24. A week later, the deputy director agreed to appoint an investigating officer from outside the Council. On 1 April, Ms X asked the Council to place the stage two investigation on hold until she knew the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. The Council initially agreed to this but informed Ms X the following week the investigation would be resuming. Ms X did not engage further in the process.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not always possible to check the progress of the case every two weeks due to workload pressures. It said it held monthly meetings with a deputy director to discuss the progress of investigations, though it has only provided a report from August 2021 which mentions this case.
26. The Council said because of a lack of available managers, high staff turnover and high sickness levels related to COVID-19, in February 2021 children’s services agreed to fund a full-time investigating officer within the complaints service. Due to a recent increase in stage two investigations, it has allocated a second officer to carry out investigations.
27. The Council provided data from the last three years about the timeliness of its stage two investigations. In previous years, it completed more than half of investigations outside the 65-working day deadline. However, last year it completed around 25% of investigations outside the deadline.

Analysis

28. The Council has failed to complete a stage two investigation within the timescales set out in law. Despite the Council producing an action plan to address the faults we previously identified, it continues to display poor complaint handling in Ms X’s case. This includes appointing an investigating officer despite them saying they were due to leave the Council and failing to act with sufficient urgency to appoint a replacement. Ms X has again been left frustrated and without answers to her complaint.
29. Records provided by the Council show it is not adhering to the action plan provided in June 2020. Fortnightly progress checks did not take place, and it has not shown monthly reports on timeliness were provided to senior officers.
30. We welcome the Council’s decision to put additional resources into its stage two investigations. The data provided by the Council about its performance last year suggests this is having a positive impact on the timeliness of investigations.
31. The Council must complete the stage two investigation; it is a statutory requirement. It is important for Ms X to receive a response to her complaint with the independent oversight provided by the statutory complaints procedure. The Council can also consider matters which the Ombudsman may not be able to investigate. For this reason, although we recognise and understand Ms X’s frustration, it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider the substance of Ms X’s complaint until the Council has completed the statutory complaint procedure.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of the final decision, to remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X for the delay in completing the investigation;
• pay Ms X £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble she was put to in pursuing her complaint to the Ombudsman;
• pay a further £250 to remedy the frustration caused by the continuing delay in responding to her complaint; and
• begin an investigation based on the terms of reference completed in November 2021. The Council should provide monthly updates to the Ombudsman on its progress with the investigation. If there is any further delay beyond 65 working days (starting with the date of our final decision) the Council should pay Ms X a further financial remedy at a rate of £50 for each week of delay.
33. Within three months of the final decision, the Council will provide a report to a relevant overview and scrutiny committee about the timeliness of stage two statutory complaint investigations; progress with the Council’s action plan; and what further steps need to be taken to ensure investigations are completed within statutory timescales.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons set out in this statement. Ms X was caused an injustice by the actions of the Council and it has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman