Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council considered his complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in considering Mr X’s complaint, and for failing to provide a satisfactory remedy. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it considered his complaint under the process. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedies to Mr X in recognition of the distress and delay caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not properly considered and investigated his complaint through the complaints process.
2. Mr X says the Council has failed to give due regard to the concerns and evidence he raised about his experiences with Children’s Social Care.
3. Mr X also complains the Council significantly delayed investigating his complaint, that the investigation methods were flawed, and as such, the conclusions cannot be relied upon and the remedy not suitable.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Council and information he provided. I also considered information from the Council.
9. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on my draft decision, and I considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedures

The three-stage process

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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
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 that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to investigate the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
13. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
14. 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.
15. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

16. 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.
17. 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

18. Mr X has two children that he shares with an ex-partner.
19. Between 2019 and 2023 the Council were involved with Mr X and his children due to child protection concerns.

Stage one complaint handling

20. In August 2021 Mr X complained to the Council. In his complaint he said:

• The social worker had not responded to his safeguarding concerns about his children.
• the social worker held negative views about him which impacted the care and support of his children, and his access to them.
• The Council did not take reasonable action when he raised safeguarding concerns.
• The social worker had said she had spoken to police when she hadn’t.
• The social worker had allowed a family member to obstruct contact and assault the children.
• There were multiple errors in the child and family assessment.
• The social worker had issued a contact arrangement plan without considering the family’s needs.
• The social worker spoke inappropriately to the children.
• The social worker gave different recollections of events to different people.

21. The Council’s stage one response said:

• The social worker had not prioritised either parent.
• The social worker should have carried out further home visits to involve parents in the work.
• The reports written by the Council were balanced and fair.
• The Council would not draw a conclusion on the matter of assault by a family member, as the child had not raised any concerns.
• Mr X sent a large volume of communication that could not always be responded to.
• The Council’s plan for contact should have been discussed before issuing, but the plan was formed with the best interests of the children.

22. Mr X remained unhappy and asked his complaint be considered at stage two.

Stage two

23. The Council confirmed Mr X’s stage two in September 2021, however there were significant delays in the Independent Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) being appointed.
24. The stage two upheld or partially upheld most of Mr X’s complaint. The only part it did not uphold was that the social worker was bias against Mr X.
25. The IO and IP sent their reports to the Council in April 2023. In July 2023 the Council sent its adjudication letter to Mr X. In the Adjudication letter it said it mostly agreed with the findings of the IO and IP, but that it was changing one point of partially upheld to fully upheld. However, it did not feel a financial remedy was suitable at this time.
26. Mr X remained unhappy and asked for his complaint to be considered by a stage three review panel.

Stage three

27. The Council at first arranged for the review panel to take place in October 2023, however it was cancelled due to staff sickness and rearranged for November 2023.
28. The stage three review panel upheld the findings of the stage two. It set out several service improvements for the Council, and recommended the Council consider a financial remedy for the distress caused to Mr X.
29. Mr X disputed the findings of the panel as he said that it could not properly consider his complaint without evidence from the police, which he had not been advised to get. Mr X felt that if the Council had the evidence from the police, it would fully uphold the part of his complaint about the social worker speaking with the police, instead of only partially upholding it. Mr X then got the evidence from the police and sent it to the Council.
30. The Council sent its final response and adjudication of the stage three findings to Mr X in December 2023. In the response it said agreed with the panel’s findings and recommendations and offered Mr X a financial remedy of £200 for distress and delay. The final response also said the Council had considered the new evidence from Mr X but that this would not have changed the panel’s outcome.
31. Mr X remained unhappy and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Consideration of the complaint

32. As set out in paragraphs 16 and 17, the Ombudsman will not reinvestigate the substantive matters of complaint unless there is reason to believe the way the Council considered the complaint through the complaints process is flawed.
33. I have reviewed the Council’s stage two investigation and the stage three review panel. The stage two investigation upheld or partially upheld all of Mr X’s complaint, and the stage two adjudication letter further upheld parts of Mr X’s complaint.
34. I have considered how the stage two and stage three considered Mr X’s complaints, and I cannot see evidence that the way in which the investigations were flawed. The decisions and reasoning reached by the stage two and stage three are clear and with rationale.
35. Part of Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman is that he did not know he was supposed to obtain information the Stage two did not obtain, and therefore the stage three did not consider his complaint.
36. This is in relation to police information that Mr X feels the stage two should have got. It is not the role of the Council to obtain information on Mr X’s behalf, and the Council is right that if Mr X wanted this information, he should have sought it himself. The stage three did not find the stage two should have got the information but agreed that communication about evidence and how to obtain information should be made clearer for complainants in the future.
37. While Mr X could not give further evidence to the stage three panel, he did give it to the Council for consideration before the Council sent the final response. The Council has showed that it considered the new evidence, but on balance it would not have changed the outcome.
38. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
39. In making its decision not to change the outcome, the Council took account of the new evidence from Mr X, and information from stage three panel. The Council followed the appropriate process when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
40. The stage three has already identified the appropriate service improvements to address the maladministration by the Council, including improving communication about how to give further evidence. I am therefore not recommending any further service improvements. In response to my draft decision, the Council provided satisfactory evidence that it had carried out the recommendations from the stage three panel.
41. Additionally, the Council refused to consider a financial remedy for distress at stage two and did not properly consider a remedy for distress at stage three, as it tied the distress remedy to delay. The remedy offered by the Council of £200 for delay and distress is not in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance, which sets out that distress stemming from administration is separate to remedies for delay in complaint handling.
42. The distress Mr X experienced because of maladministration by the Council is clear. Most of his complaints were upheld or partially upheld, and therefore the need for a financial remedy for distress is separate to that of any failure to properly manage Mr X’s complaint. I am therefore recommending the Council provide Mr X with a separate remedy for the distress caused by the original maladministration, as upheld by the stage two and stage three.

Delay in complaint handling

43. There were significant delays in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints process.
44. The Stage two investigation should have been carried out within 65 working days of receiving the request. There was a delay of 386 days or about 13 months. This was fault by the Council, causing unnecessary delay and further distress to Mr X.
45. There was also delay in the Council’s consideration for the complaint at stage three. The Council had 45 days to hold the panel and issue the final response, however there was a further delay of 60 days.
46. Overall, there was a delay of 15 months outside of the statutory timescales for the Council to consider Mr X’s complaint at stage two and stage three.
47. The Ombudsman has previously issued a report due to significant concerns about the Council’s delay in considering complaints under the statutory complaints procedure. Mr X’s complaint falls within the timeline of fault previously identified by the Ombudsman, and as such, the service improvements recommended in the report are still taking effect. Therefore, I have not recommended any further recommendations for the Council managing the delays for complaint handling.
48. However, the Council should have offered a financial remedy to Mr X in recognition of the delay caused. The report issued by the Ombudsman recommended a financial remedy of £25 per month for every month of delay outside the statutory timescales. The Council’s remedy of £200 for distress and delay was not in line with this recommendation, and therefore I am proposing a revised remedy to recognise the length of the delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Apologise to Mr X for the fault found. The Council should have due regard for the Ombudsman’s guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr X £375 in recognition of the delay in considering his complaint. This is calculated at £25 per month for 15 months of delay.
• Pay Mr X £350 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s actions, as upheld by the stage two and stage three.

50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for delaying considering Mr X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure, and for failing to provide Mr X with a suitable remedy despite his upheld complaints.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman