Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her statutory children’s complaint. She said delays had a significant impact on the family and caused distress. We find the Council at fault for delays in complaint handling, which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has remedied the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her statutory children’s complaint. Specifically, she complained that:
1. the Council failed to investigate her complaint at stage one;
2. there were delays at stage two;
3. the Council failed to complete recommendations and remedies; and,
4. the Council placed her child on a child protection plan because she made a complaint about the social worker.
2. Ms X said the delays had a significant impact on the family, this caused distress, and she had to employ an advocate to represent her during this complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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 have and have not investigated

8. Ms X complained the Council placed her child on a child protection plan because she made a complaint about the social worker (part d of the complaint).
9. This was not part of Ms X’s original complaint to the Council. This was because the child was placed on a child protection plan while the statutory complaints procedure was underway.
10. Ms X said this was considered as part of her stage two complaint. However, I have seen no evidence that supports this. There are references in the investigating officer’s report to the child being placed on a child protection plan but there is no specific complaint about this. For this reason, I find the Council has not had an opportunity to respond to this complaint. I find there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to consider it, so this part of the complaint is premature (see paragraph six).
11. If Ms X wishes to complain about this specific issue, she may wish to complain to the Council. I consider it reasonable for Ms X to make this complaint and give the Council an opportunity to investigate and reply.
12. I have investigated parts a, b and c of this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
14. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

15. 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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. After this deadline has passed, a complainant can ask for the complaint to be dealt with at stage two.
17. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. Stage two begins either when the complainant asks for it, or where parties agree that stage one is not appropriate. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer to look into the complaint and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
18. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the investigating officer’s report and any report from the independent person. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take.
19. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

23. In November 2022, Ms X complained to the Council. The Council sent complaint resolution plans to Ms X. In February 2023, the Council told Ms X that the deadline for stage one had passed. It said she had a right to ask for stage two. Ms X told the Council she wanted to go to stage two.
24. In August, the investigating officer issued their report. They upheld a number of Ms X’s complaints and made recommendations to the Council.
25. In September, the Council issued its adjudication. It acknowledged delays in the stage two process. The Council agreed with the investigating officer’s findings. It apologised for the failings and the delay. It offered Ms X £1250 to reflect the lack of stage one response, her time and trouble, and the distress caused.
26. In November, the Council offered Ms X an increased payment of £3000. The Council sent Ms X an action plan about how it would meet the stage two recommendations.
27. Ms X asked for a stage three review. The stage three review panel was held in December and the report issued shortly after. The panel made further recommendations.
28. In January 2024, the Council responded to the stage three panel’s findings. It agreed with the panel’s findings and set out how it was meeting the recommendations.
29. In February, Ms X accepted the Council’s offer of £3000.

Analysis

30. As I have said above, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. I have not found any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that call the findings into question. I find the stage two investigation was thorough, well-balanced, and proportionate. For this reason, I have not re-investigated Ms X’s complaint.
31. I will now address the specific points of Ms X’s complaint.

Stage one

32. Ms X complained the Council failed to investigate her complaint at stage one (part a of the complaint).
33. The Council acknowledged this and told Ms X that she had the right to ask for stage two because the stage one had not been completed by the deadline. It was appropriate for the Council to tell Ms X of her rights. However, failing to complete a stage one complaint response is fault.
34. I find this fault caused Ms X injustice in that it cost her time and trouble and caused distress. I find the Council has apologised for this and made a payment to Ms X to reflect the injustice caused. These remedies are appropriate and proportionate, and in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Stage two

35. Ms X complained there were delays at stage two (part b of the complaint).
36. Ms X asked for stage two in February 2023. The deadline, which was 65 working days after Ms X’s request, was in May. The Council issued the stage two adjudication in September, four months late. This is fault.
37. The Council acknowledged in its stage two adjudication that there were delays in the stage two process. It apologised and made a payment to Ms X to reflect the injustice caused. These remedies are appropriate and proportionate, and in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Completion of recommendations

38. Ms X complained the Council failed to complete recommendations and remedies (part c of the complaint).
39. I have considered whether the Council properly considered the recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three review panel.
40. I find the Council has completed most of the recommendations. The remaining recommendations are in progress, and this is appropriate. I find no delay in the Council completing the recommendations. I find the Council’s remedies (the apologies and the payment) are appropriate and proportionate to the level of injustice caused.
41. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault for delays in the statutory complaints procedure. I find this caused Ms X injustice. I am satisfied the Council’s apology and payment already made to Ms X appropriately and proportionately remedy the level of injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman