Summary: Miss C complained that the Council delayed in completing a stage two investigation of her complaint about children’s services. We found the Council was responsible for some of the delay. It has agreed to pay Miss C £100 and offer her a stage three review panel.

The complaint

1. Miss C complained that the London Borough of Bexley (the Council) took 10 months to complete a stage two investigation into her complaints about children’s services. This caused her significant distress and frustration.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have only investigated the delay in completing stage two of the statutory children’s complaints process. I have not investigated the substance of the complaints. If Miss C remains unhappy with the stage two outcome, she can escalate her complaint to stage three, providing reasons for her dissatisfaction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, and the Council. I have also considered the guidance on the statutory children’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Are we getting the best from children’s social care complaints?’ published in March 2015 and guide for practitioners about the statutory complaints procedure published in March 2021.
6. Miss C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
7. 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

Statutory complaints procedure

8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage two of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review.
9. Stage one should be completed in a maximum of 20 working days, stage two in 65 working days and stage three within approximately 50 working days, in total 27 weeks.
10. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.

Statutory complaint procedure guidance

11. The guidance says that if the complaint has been submitted orally, the complaints manager must ensure that the details of the complaint and the complainant’s desired outcome are recorded in writing and agreed with the complainant. It also states that the complaints manager should arrange for a full and considered investigation of the complaint to take place without delay.

What happened

Stage one complaints

12. On 1 February 2022 Miss C made a formal complaint to the Council about an unannounced visit by a social worker to her house when she and the two children in her care were ill with COVID19. The Council replied at stage one of the statutory complaints procedure on 11 February 2022. It explained why the social worker had visited and the events leading up to the visit. The Council accepted its response could have been better managed and upheld the complaint due to the distress caused. It apologised to Miss C.
13. Miss C escalated the complaint to stage two on 13 March 2022. She disputed the social worker’s account of the events and felt it was an excessive reaction bordering on harassment.
14. On 30 March 2022 Miss C made a second stage one complaint about many aspects of the Council’s actions in relation to her care of the children and its treatment of her.
15. On 14 April 2022 the Council offered a meeting to discuss both complaints. Miss C replied saying she did not want the Council to consider the complaints together. The Council met with Miss C on 25 April 2022 and extended the timescale to respond as the complaint was complex. It sent the stage one response to the second complaint on 23 May 2022.

Stage two investigation

16. In June 2022 the Council decided to consider both complaints together at stage two. It appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP). They met with Miss C and her advocate in July 2022. The IO said the meeting only lasted 20 minutes and they had many more questions to ask Miss C. They offered to meet again or send a draft statement for Miss C comment on. Miss C did not agree to a further meeting, so the IO sent a draft statement of complaint to Miss C on 17 August 2022.
17. Miss C emailed the IO on 12 September saying she had been delayed in considering the statement of complaint due to the summer holidays. The IO chased Miss C on 18 September, 13 and 18 October 2022. On 25 October 2022 Miss C replied saying she wished to continue with the stage two process, but she did not agree with all of the statement of complaint. The IP asked her to reply in full by 28 October 2022. On 28 October 2022 Miss C said she would reply after the half-term holiday. On 18 and 22 November 2022 the IO chased Miss C again about the statement of complaint. On 5 December 2022 the IO decided to proceed with the investigation. Miss C did not reply.
18. The IO interviewed officers in December 2022 and January 2023, then requested court documents in mid-February 2023. The IO and IP reports were sent to the Council on 6 March 2023 and to Miss C on 17 March 2023. Eight of the complaints were not upheld, one was partially upheld and six had no finding. The Council sent its adjudication letter to Miss C on 13 April 2023 agreeing with the IO’s findings.
19. On 16 May 2023 Miss C said she wanted to escalate to stage three but she would be contacting us first. She said she had not agreed for the two complaints to be considered together. The Council asked for details of why she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
20. On 5 June 2023 she said to the Council that she was escalating the complaint to our office and complained to us on 26 July 2023. She said she believed a substantial portion of her complaint had been omitted and she had not consented to the complaints being investigated together. She said she had asked for advice from our office and we confirmed that ‘such consolidation was not a mandatory course of action’.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council said the IO also contacted our office for advice on considering the complaints together and we advised that they could be. There are no notes of either of these exchanges on the case file.
22. In September 2023 we invited the Council to remedy the delay by paying Miss C £150 and offering her the chance to go to stage three. The Council agreed to go to stage three on condition that Miss C provided her reasons for doing so but it did not agree to the payment because it said Miss C had delayed in responding to the IO over the statement of complaint.

Analysis

Stage one

23. The Council responded to the first stage one complaint within the timescales. It exceeded the timescale on the second stage one by about four weeks. It kept Miss C informed of this delay and met with her to discuss the complaint in detail which is not required at stage one of the process. I do not consider the delay was excessive and do not find fault here.

Stage two

24. The Council decided in June 2022 to combine both complaints into a single stage two investigation. While this is not mandatory, I consider it was a reasonable and efficient approach in this case. The complaints manager is responsible for ensuring a full and considered investigation of the complaint to take place without delay and this approach assisted in meeting that requirement without impacting adversely on Miss C.
25. I also note Miss C had ample opportunity between 17 August 2022 and 5 December 2022 to provide her views on the statement of complaint and the Council’s approach, but she did not do so. I do not criticise the Council for progressing the investigation without agreement from Miss C on the statement of complaint. In fact, I consider it should have done so sooner. I commend its efforts to seek Miss C’s views, but it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure a thorough investigation takes place without delay. The guidance does not require the Council to confirm the statement of complaint with the complainant when the complaint has been made in writing. So, after it had allowed a reasonable period for Miss C to respond (in the region of four to six weeks), I consider the Council should have progressed the investigation.
26. The stage two investigation should have taken approximately three months to complete, but in this case, it took ten months. Miss C was responsible for most of the delay between August and December, but the investigation still took longer than it should, partly due to the need to obtain court documents and partly due to the delay in completing the adjudication process. This was fault which caused Miss C frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed within one month of the date of my final decision to pay Miss C £100 and offer her a stage three review panel.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss C and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman