Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to offer help and support, including respite to her and her child P, when she requested it. She said the Council also blamed her as a parent and recorded false information about her in the social care records. The Council delayed in considering Miss X’s complaint. It has already offered Miss X an appropriate remedy for the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to offer help and support, including respite to her and her child P, when she requested it. She said the Council also blamed her as a parent and recorded false information about her in the social care records. Miss X said this caused her and P distress, they have missed support and she has been traumatised by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. Miss X complains about matters the Council considered through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. 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. Therefore, I have investigated how the Council considered Miss X’s complaints.
3. I have not investigated Miss X’s substantive complaints.

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 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)
6. 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

7. I read the documents Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
8. I considered the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. Miss 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Children’s Statutory Complaints Procedure

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.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask it to consider it at stage two. At stage two councils appoint an investigator, and an independent person who oversees the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the procedure from the date of request.
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 within 20 days of receiving the council’s response. 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. The purpose of the stage three panel includes:
• considering the adequacy of the stage two investigation;
• obtaining any further information or advice in order to resolve the complaint; and
• identifying injustice and recommending appropriate redress.
14. 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.

Education, Health and Care Plan

15. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC plan is set out in sections.
16. As part of the assessment for an EHC plan, councils must gather advice and information from children’s social care about the young person’s social care needs. This information is included in section H of the plan.

What happened

17. In April 2021 Miss X complained to the Council about the lack of support it offered her and P when she requested it. She also complained about the actions of social worker A in relation to completing an EHC plan for P.
18. The Council responded to Miss X in May 2021 and did not uphold her complaint. Miss X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to consider the matter at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure.
19. The Council told Miss X in July 2021 there was a delay in it appointing an investigator as none were available. It said it updated her again at the beginning of August. The Council told Miss X it had appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) at the end of September 2021.
20. The IO and IP met with Miss X and discussed the complaint. The IO set out the statement of complaint at the end of January 2022. There were two points of complaint about the Council not responding to Miss X’s request for help and support, and one that Council social workers did not understand their responsibilities in completing sections of EHC plans.
21. The IO considered the available documentary evidence, interviewed key available Council staff members and Miss X. They completed the investigation in March 2022. The IO’s report partially upheld Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of support to her and P. It did not uphold the complaint about Council social workers contributing to EHC plans. It recommended the Council should:
• apologise to Miss X;
• offer to work with Miss X to identify and correct any factual errors in P’s case record; and
• pay Miss X for the time and trouble in making the complaint.
22. The Council sent its adjudication letter to Miss X in April 2022. It said it agreed with the investigation findings. It apologised for the fault in its action and set out what it had done to improve services. It offered Miss X £100 to recognise it delayed in responding to her complaint, and £200 each for Miss X and P to recognise the distress caused to them by the partially upheld complaints. It also offered to meet with Miss X to identify any factual errors in the case record.
23. The adjudication letter set out Miss X’s right to ask for a stage three panel and asked her to tell the Council within 20 days if she wished to do so. It told Miss X of her right to contact the Ombudsman and we would expect the statutory complaint procedure to be complete before we would consider the complaint.
24. Miss X told the Council she was dissatisfied with its response and would bring the matter to us in May 2022. Miss X said she wished to complain about social worker B, for the same reasons as social worker A. Miss X said she did not see the value in creating a new complaint as it was the same issue.
25. The Council again told Miss X we would expect the statutory complaint procedure to be complete before we would consider the complaint. It offered to support Miss X with an early referral to us. In relation to social worker B, it said it considered Miss X disagreed with the information the social workers were recording, rather than the actions of the social worker. The Council repeated its offer to meet with her to discuss factual inaccuracies, which was a reasonable solution. Miss X declined to meet with the Council,
26. Miss X complained to us in November 2022.
27. The Council has provided evidence to show it implemented the service improvements identified as being necessary in the stage two investigation report.

My findings

28. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question the Council’s decision because Miss X disagrees with it. We can only decide if there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
29. Miss X complained about matters that should be considered through the statutory complaint procedure. The Council completed stage one and two of the procedure and told Miss X of her right to a stage three panel. It also advised her that we would expect the complaint to have completed all stages of the statutory procedure before we would consider it. Miss X did not request a stage three panel. The Council followed the correct procedure in considering Miss X’s complaint, there was no fault in its actions.
30. The purpose of a stage three panel hearing is to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation and to try and resolve any outstanding complaints. In order for us to consider this matter as an early referral, the stage two investigation would have to have upheld all complaint points. This is not the case and therefore I have not considered the substantive matters further.
31. The guidance states a stage two investigation should take a maximum of 13 weeks from the point of request to the Council’s adjudication letter. The Council took 48 weeks to complete this stage which is significantly longer than the guidance allows and was fault. This caused Miss X frustration. The Council’s adjudication letter offered Miss X £100 to recognise it delayed in responding to her complaint. This is in line with our Guidance on remedies. Miss X could have asked the stage three panel to consider the appropriateness of that remedy if she was dissatisfied.
32. The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint about social worker B was appropriate. Miss X could have raised it at the stage three panel for further consideration if she was dissatisfied. There was no fault in the Council’s action.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in the Council’s actions and the Council has already remedied the injustice this caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman