Summary: Mr B complained about excessive delay by the Council in dealing with his complaint about children’s services through the statutory complaints procedure. We found the Council delayed excessively in completing two stages of the process which caused Mr B additional distress, harm and frustration. We welcome the Council’s agreement to pay Mr B the £5,000 which he requested and implement the agreed action plan. The Council has agreed to keep Mr B informed regularly of progress with this and let us know the outcome of the review of its complaints service.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) delayed excessively in investigating his complaints about the Council’s failures towards him as a ‘looked after child’, which caused him significant harm and distress over a prolonged period. The delay in the complaints process has exacerbated the distress and caused him significant frustration and time and trouble. He wanted an appropriate financial remedy to recognise the harm and distress he was caused along with meaningful service improvements to ensure other people do not experience the same problems.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
5. 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

What I found

Statutory children’s complaints procedure

6. 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.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
8. 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 have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

What happened

12. Mr B was a looked after child who spent time in local authority residential care. He was very vulnerable and at risk of abuse. He had suffered trauma and the ongoing effects of this impacted on his mental health leading to self-harm and suicide attempts.
13. On 7 March 2020 Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council about the actions of children’s services. The Council agreed the terms of reference of the complaint on 25 March 2020 and responded on 14 April 2020. The Council did not uphold his complaint and did not comment on many of Mr B’s points due to ongoing court proceedings.
14. On 21 April 2020 Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two of the process and the Council (after initially refusing to do so due to court proceedings) agreed to this on 26 June 2020. Mr B complained to us on 30 June 2020 about the way the Council was handling his complaint and the time it was taking. We sent it back to the Council asking it to complete the statutory process.
15. On the 28 August 2020 the Investigating Officer (IO) and the Independent Person (IP) agreed a statement of complaint with Mr B. At the end of November 2020, the IO left due to ill health and Mr B came back to us in December 2020. We sent the complaint back to the Council again to complete the process. The Council appointed a new IO who left in January 2021. The Council appointed a third IO on 27 January 2021.
16. In March 2021 the new IO agreed a statement of complaint and the Council provided a stage two response to the new elements of the complaint. In June 2021 the IO stopped doing complaint investigations. The Council then suspended the investigation to pursue mediation, but this proved difficult to progress. Mr B wanted to complete the complaints process, so the Council agreed to fund an external IO.
17. Mr B came back to us in July 2021. We intervened, and the Council agreed to complete the stage two investigation within two months. It also agreed to pay Mr B £300 for the delay. The Council indicated it may have difficulty in keeping to this timeframe, but the new IO considered the end of November should be achievable.
18. The IO completed their report on 8 August 2022 and the IP completed theirs on 12 October 2022 due to delays by the Council in clarifying legal issues. Of the 94 heads of complaint, 50 were fully upheld, 12 were partially upheld, 15 were not upheld, 11 were inconclusive and in the remaining six, there was no finding.
19. The IO said in their conclusions:

“The investigation has revealed [Mr B] has suffered considerable frustration and distress out of a sense of injustice which appears to have impacted upon him detrimentally and upon the way in which he has behaved at times. The actions of the [Council] appear to have exacerbated the trauma of the experiences he has had and to have been emotionally harmful to him. In my view, Mr B has been unable to form safe relationships either at home or with social services…. In therapeutic terms, [Mr B’s] needs were delayed or unable to be provided as a result.

There is a general sense that professionals lacked focus exploring legal advice at appropriate times, in order to establish how threshold could be met in the court arena to protect [Mr B] from further potential abuse. Circumstances such as promoting [Mr B] to be returned to an unsafe environment during court proceedings, providing him inadequate safety planning and protection and not providing him with the appropriate therapeutic placement setting, required to meet his needs, have significantly impacted upon the management of this case and the ability of Social Care - the statute designed to protect [Mr B] - to do so.”

20. They made 35 recommendations under nine separate headings including:
• A sincere apology for all the upheld complaints, an acknowledgement of the practices that failed Mr B and the impact this has had on his health and wellbeing.
• An open and transparent action plan with clear timescales and to ensure that Mr B is involved in the process of change where possible.
• Consideration of Mr B’s request for reimbursements and recompense for the risk, harm and emotional distress he experienced.
• A review of Mr B’s care package and psychological needs, followed by appropriate support from the private sector if necessary.
• Completion of outstanding investigations into Mr B’s complaints about individual care homes/staff.
• Professional conduct considerations in terms of current and former social work staff.
• A review of how the Council is currently supporting vulnerable people and consideration of introducing Trauma-Informed Practice in future cases.
• A review of its working relationship with the police to ensure young people are safeguarded.
• A review of social work practice and ensuring that there is greater clarity about the rationale behind decision-making.
• Improvements to complaint-handling, including no longer asking busy operational mangers at the Council to carry out stage two investigations, reviewing the resourcing of the service and reviewing its procedures in line with our guidance.
21. The Council sent its adjudication letter to Mr B on 24 November 2022. It agreed with the findings on the individual complaints but gave no comment or commitment to the recommendations beyond agreeing to meet with Mr B in December 2022 to resolve any outstanding issues and consider any further actions.
22. The Council met with Mr B in January 2023, but another meeting was necessary to complete the action plan. The Council arranged this for 3 February 2023 but cancelled it.
23. Mr B complained again to us, and we said initially he should complete the three stage process if he remained unhappy. However, in February 2023 we agreed to investigate the complaint given the continuing delay.
24. The Council arranged a further meeting with Mr B on 9 March 2023. On 29 March 2023 it sent him the completed action plan with a letter of apology offering him £3000. I started my investigation at the beginning of April 2023 and spoke to Mr B. He had written back to the Council asking for £5,000 and a full implementation of the action plan.
25. The Council in responding to my enquiries, said it had agreed that £5,000 was an appropriate remedy, that all the reimbursements requested by Mr B had been paid and the action plan was in progress. Mr B indicated that he was satisfied with this resolution and did not wish to go to stage three of the complaints process.

Analysis

26. This was clearly a very complex and sensitive case involving a very vulnerable child who had experienced traumatic events over a significant period of time. However, the delay in completing two stages of the complaints process was excessive and unacceptable. It has taken over three years from the point Mr B made his first complaint to agreeing the action plan and an appropriate remedy. This was fault which has caused Mr B significant injustice.
27. I understand the Council experienced a number of difficulties in dealing with the complaint but to take this length of time has caused further distress, harm and frustration to Mr B and delayed access to therapeutic support which was recommended over three years ago. Mr B has continually chased up the Council and involved our office on several occasions. We tried to secure an outcome by the autumn of 2021 but the Council still took another 12 months to complete the investigation and a further five months to draw up an action plan and offer a remedy. This was far too long.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. I welcome the Council’s efforts since November 2022 to meet with Mr B and include him at all stages in compiling the action plan. I also welcome the agreement (with Mr B) to pay him £5000 to recognise the significant injustice he has been caused.
29. I note the action plan has clear timescales and I asked the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• to pay Mr B the agreed £5000;
• to commit to providing three-monthly updates to Mr B on progress with the agreed actions; and
• to commit to providing us with an update of agreed changes to the complaints service once it has completed its review in December 2023.
30. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman