Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and her son, Y, after it upheld a complaint she made through the children’s statutory complaint procedure about how it supported them. The Council failed to properly identify the injustice caused to Ms X and Y and did not provide adequate remedies. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £700 to recognise the uncertainty, frustration and distress she was caused and the risk of harm Y was put to by the Council’s faults.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and her son Y after it upheld a complaint she made through the children’s statutory complaint procedure about how it supported them. Ms X said the remedy the Council offered was insufficient for the distress and frustration she was caused and the risk of harm Y was put at.

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)
4. 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

5. I have investigated how the Council considered and responded to Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Ms X has made other complaints to the Council which are, or have been, subject to separate Ombudsman investigations. I have therefore not investigated the complaint procedure in relation to two points of Ms X’s complaint: a complaint about a care package to support bathing and a complaint about respite services. This is because they have been considered in different Ombudsman investigations.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the documents Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her on the phone.
7. I considered the documents the Council sent in response to my enquiries
8. Ms 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

Children’s statutory complaints procedures

The three-stage process

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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 look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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. However, we may 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.

Duty to safeguard and promote welfare (section 17)

16. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.

What happened

17. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology of everything that happened.

Background

18. Ms X’s son, Y, has disabilities and additional needs. Y has reduced safety awareness and always requires close supervision. Y attends a specialist school where he receives one-to-one support. Ms X looks after Y on her own.
19. Y was supported by a CIN plan in early 2023. The Council decided it would close the CIN case in March 2023. Also in March the Council offered Ms X a new property (property 1). Ms X told the Council the property was not suitable for Y’s needs at the end of the month and asked for a review of its suitability and for a social worker to visit the property. In the meantime Ms X moved into property 1. The Council closed the CIN plan in April 2023.
20. Ms X commissioned a private occupational therapist (OT) who wrote a report identifying many areas of risk to Y inside and outside the property. These included the risks of Y leaving the property unaccompanied, of climbing and falling on fixtures and fittings and of breaking glass in single glazed windows. The report recommended actions the Council could take to reduce the risk of harm to Y. Ms X provided the OT report to the Council but it did not respond to it.
21. When a Council OT assessed the property in June and again in July 2023 they decided it was unsuitable for Y’s needs. The Council told Ms X property 1 posed a risk to Y and was not safe for him in its current state. The Council offered Ms X a new property (property 2) in July 2023. Ms X moved into property 2 in July.

Statutory complaint procedure

22. Ms X complained to the Council in July 2023. She made 20 points of complaint about how the Council had supported her and Y. Ms X’s complaint included that it had closed the CIN plan for Y in April 2023 when there were still concerns for his safety due to property 1 not being suitable for his needs, and about a lack of proper assessment and support.
23. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and did not uphold it. Ms X was dissatisfied and asked the Council to progress her complaint to stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure in September 2023.
24. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). They met with Ms X in December 2023 and discussed the complaint. The IO set out the statement of complaint and Ms X agreed it in December 2023. There were 13 points of complaint. I have not considered two points of complaint as set out in paragraph five. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Closed the CIN Plan supporting Y in April 2023.
2. Did not reopen Y’s CIN case when professional raised concerns about Y’s safety inside the property.
3. Delayed implementing recommendations for adaptations to property 1 recommended by the private OT report.
4. Delayed completing an OT assessment at property 1 for three months which resulted in Y being injured.
5. Failed to refer Y for support from the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) when she requested it.
6. Social worker misrepresented comments she made at a CIN meeting and stated she was verbally abusive.
7. Failed to provide Ms X with the support of an OT or a social worker when she was first offered property 1 to ensure the property was safe.
8. Children services failed to work jointly with housing to consider Y’s needs.
9. Failed to review Ms X’s parent/carer assessment as her caring role increased despite her asking for this to be reviewed since March 2023.
10. Officer failed to respond to her email.
11. Failed to escalate her complaint to stage two when she requested it.
25. Ms X wanted the Council to provide compensation for the stress and delay caused to her by the matters she complained about, and to provide support services for Y via CAMHS.
26. The IO considered all the available documentary evidence, interviewed key Council staff members, Y’s previous advocate, and Ms X. They completed the investigation in February 2024 and the IP agreed with the IO’s findings. It did not uphold complaint h, did not make a finding on point f and partially upheld complaints a and j.
27. The investigation upheld complaints b, c, d, e, g, i and k.
• Complaint b) The IO said there was no evidence the council explored safeguarding referrals with any real focus on Y and assumed his situation had not changed from the last time it had supported him.
• Complaint c) and d) and g) The IO found the Council did not arrange for a social worker to visit property 1 with Ms X to consider the risk to Y, as she had requested in March. They also found the Council did not explain to Ms X why it did not accept her private OT report on property 1 which she provided at the end of April. The IO said the Council’s OT visited property 1 in June, and again in July with a surveyor and decided that Property 1 was not suitable for Y’s needs without adaptations, and the adaptations needed were not feasible. On that basis the Council decided it should offer Ms X a different property and Ms X moved into property 2 at the end of the month. The IO identified this as a delay of 11 weeks.
• Complaint e) The IO found the Council had not responded to Ms X when she asked it to refer Y to CAMHS. It also found that Y was already under the care of a CAMHS doctor and Ms X could have made the request to any professional involved in the multi-agency support team already in place for Y.
• Complaint i) The IO found the Council had not responded to Ms X’s requests for a parent/carer re-assessment but one had been completed in November 2023 because of another complaint Ms X had made to the Council. The IO did however find that the process and policy for the Council to complete parent/carer assessments was unclear and vague.
• Complaint k) The IO found the Council delayed two months before it began considering Ms X’s complaint at stage two.
28. The IO recommended the Council should consider providing Ms X compensation for the delay in starting the stage two process. It also recommended it consider reviewing its policy around parent/carer assessments including the process for completing, reviewing and informing people of the outcomes.
29. The Council wrote an adjudication letter to Ms X in March 2024. It agreed with most of the IO’s findings. It partially upheld complaint i) as it said it had completed the parent/carer assessment although it was delayed. It said it would consider the IO’s recommendations for compensation and consider any changes that could be made to the existing parent/carer assessment template and the information it provided to members of the public about the assessments.
30. Ms X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to consider her complaint at stage three. She asked the stage three panel to consider compensation for the Council’s failures and injuries caused to Y.
31. The Council arranged a stage three panel meeting which considered Ms X’s complaint in May 2024. It read Ms X’s representations and the IO and IP’s reports. The panel considered the points of Ms X’s complaint that the stage two investigation had either partially or not upheld, or did not make a finding on, as well as Ms X’s requests for compensation. It decided:
• Complaint a) was upheld. Y remained a child in need and the Council should have considered if there were any safeguarding risks for Y in the new property (property 1).
• Complaint f) was upheld. There was no evidence Ms X had been abusive.
• Complaint h) was not upheld. There was evidence of joint working between children’s social care and housing.
• Complaint i) was upheld. The delay in the parent/carer assessment should not have happened.
• Complaint j) was upheld. There was no evidence the officer responded to Ms X’s email.
32. At the beginning of May 2024 the panel recommended the Council complete an assessment of Y’s needs, and complete the stage two recommendation to review its parent/carer assessment policy including the process, along with reviewing the guidance for practitioners and for parent/carers.
33. The panel did not support Ms X’s request for compensation for injuries caused to Y as it said Ms X had not provided evidence of how the injuries she reported Y suffered were caused by Council fault or could have been avoided if the Council acted without fault.
34. The Council wrote to Ms X with its response to the stage three panel report. It agreed with the panel’s findings. In response to the recommendation for a review of the parent/carer assessment process, it provided Ms X with a copy of its existing all-age carers strategy. It told Ms X she could direct any claims for personal injury to its insurance team.
35. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to us.
36. Since the stage three report the Council has offered to conduct a new assessment of Y’s needs as recommended by the panel. The Council stated Ms X declined the assessment. Ms X confirmed to me that she declined the assessment as she wanted it to be conducted by an independent social worker.
37. In response to my enquiries the Council said it was in the process of seeking legal advice on elements of the parent/carer assessment to inform the actions it should take. It anticipated the review would be complete by the end of April 2025.

My findings

The statutory complaint process

38. The Council considered Ms X’s complaints through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. Ms X has not raised any concerns about how the complaints process was conducted. The stage three panel’s purpose is to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation. The stage three panel considered the stage two investigation and agreed with the complaints it upheld. The panel made some additional findings on the other relevant points of complaints.
39. However, neither the stage two investigation nor the stage three panel adequately identify the injustice caused to Ms X and Y as a result of upheld complaints c, d and g about property 1. This was fault as Ms X had asked the Council to consider providing compensation for injuries caused to Y. The panel should have properly considered the injustice. As a result Ms X has had to continue pursuing her complaint. I have made further findings and recommendations on these points below.

Existing recommendations

40. At stage two the IO recommended the Council consider a payment to Ms X to recognise the impact of the delay in the stage two. The Council said in its adjudication letter it would consider it. I have seen no evidence the Council has considered that point or made a payment. I have made an appropriate recommendation below.
41. Both the stage two report, and the stage three panel recommended the Council review its policy, process and literature in relation to parent/carer assessments. In its stage two adjudication the Council said it would consider the point. At stage three it did not respond to the recommendation. The failure to respond to the recommendation in the stage three response was fault and left Ms X with uncertainty about what action, if any, the Council would take.
42. However, the Council stated in December 2024, that it had begun the review which it intends to complete by April 2025. I have not found fault in the Council’s actions in starting the review and have recommended the Council provide the Ombudsman with evidence when the review is complete.
43. The Council has offered Ms X an assessment of Y’s needs as recommended by the stage three panel. Ms X declined that assessment as she wanted an independent social worker to complete it. The stage three recommendation did not specify the assessment should be independent and therefore there is no fault in the Council’s actions. Ms X is entitled to decline the assessment for Y.

Injustice

44. Ms X and Y lived in property 1 between March and July 2023. The stage two investigation upheld Ms X’s complaints that the Council did not provide a social worker’s assessment of the risks of property 1 to Y, delayed in completing an OT assessment of the risks of property 1 to Y, and failed to consider a private OT assessment identifying the risk of property 1 to Y, all of which were faults. The stage two panel did not explore the injustice this caused Ms X and Y, and the stage three panel said there was no evidence Y was caused harm as a result. However, the private OT assessment and the Council OT assessment both identified the risk of harm posed to Y in property 1. The risk was so high the Council offered Ms X a different property.
45. Y was at risk of harm for the four months he lived in property 1 between April and July, which was an injustice to him. This also caused Ms X frustration and distress as she was solely responsible for keeping Y safe while they lived in a property the Council later identified as unsuitable. Had the Council acted without fault, it would have made its decision that property 1 was not suitable for Y in March or early April. I have made an appropriate recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and Y.
46. I cannot say that Y was caused an injury because of the fault found above, and it is appropriate that Ms X was advised to contact the Council’s insurers about any personal injury Y was caused because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. Within one month of this decision the Council will write to Ms X and apologise for:
• the uncertainty caused when it failed to inform her of the action it would take on the panel’s recommendation to review the parent/carer assessment process;
• the frustration caused to her by the Council’s delay in considering her complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, and pay her a symbolic amount of £200 to recognise the same;
• the frustration and distress caused to her by managing the risk of harm to Y for four months while they lived in property 1, and pay her a symbolic amount of £250 to recognise the same; and
• the risk of harm Y was put at for the four months they lived at property 1, and pay her £250 to recognise the same. Ms X should use this money for Y’s benefit as she sees fit.
48. Within three months the Council will provide evidence it has completed the review of the parent/carer assessment as set out by the stage two report and the stage three panel. The Council will identify any action it intends to take as a result and a timebound plan of when it intends to complete the actions.
49. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agree to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman