Summary: We have ended our investigation into Ms X’s complaint about how the Council provided support following the birth of her child. An independent investigation has already found no fault in what the Council did. The Council has offered Ms X a suitable remedy for any additional anxieties caused by any avoidable delays in the independent investigation process. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issues would lead to a different outcome for Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council through Birmingham Children’s Trust (BCT) provided her with the necessary and appropriate level of support following the birth of her child. Ms X says the failure to provide support has caused her distress and resulted in the decline of her physical and mental health.
2. Ms X remains unhappy with the independent investigation into her concerns. And complains she was told she did not need to attend a review panel hearing but considers the outcomes were affected by her not attending.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with the relevant law and guidance. And our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
5. 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

Statutory Complaints process

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. 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) and an independent person (IP) 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.
8. 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.
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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

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, through 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 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 and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Background

11. What follows is a summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
12. The Council’s Children’s Services are now provided by the Birmingham Children’s Trust (BCT) for the Council.
13. The BCT became aware of Ms X and her unborn child in November 2021 through a referral from her midwife. Ms X moved to the Council’s area to be nearer the father of her child (Mr Y). Ms X has medical conditions which were considered may impact on her capacity to care for the child (Z). There were also concerns about Ms X’s relationship with Mr Y. Z was born in January 2022 and the Council made Z subject to a child in need plan (CIN plan).
14. Ms X received support from the Council’s Adult Social Care Services (ASC) and a care package to help her with daily tasks for 70 hours a week in place from November 2021.
15. BCT held a final CIN meeting in September 2022 and ended its involvement with her and Z. It transferred Ms X to the Family Support Team for continuing support.

Stage 1

16. Ms X made a stage 1 complaint to the Council in January 2023 and added more concerns in February 2023. The Council says this caused a delay in it responding at stage 1. Ms X complained:
• She wanted more support from BCT with home care, housing repairs and to be rehoused
• She found the experience of the CIN plan stressful but wanted more support from the family support worker, social worker and perinatal team.
• She wanted to referral to Women’s Aid and the local children’s hospital to have better provision for disabled parents.
• She felt BCT placed her at risk of domestic abuse from Mr Y by asking her to meet him as part of the contact arrangement for Z.
• A social worker did not take her disabilities into account when working with her.
• BCT did not treated her sensitively around the time of Z’s birth.
• She felt discriminated against by BCT due to her disabilities. Ms X sought compensation, an apology, help to attend hospital appointments with Z and funded childcare.
17. In February 2023 the Council responded to the complaints and said:
• BCT’s role was to safeguard children so unfortunately did not provide homecare for adults with disabilities. Ms X was receiving a care package from ASC, and it was in place before Z’s birth.
• Social workers from BCT made calls and email contacts to the housing services during the CIN plan to support Ms X with the housing repairs she needed. It had no powers to rehouse families, and it could only be progressed by the housing department.
• Throughout the 12-month CIN plan there were professionals involved who ensured Z’s needs were met and Ms X had regular engagement with the health visitor and perinatal team. When closing the case social workers did not feel Ms X would be unable to manage. And she was given extra time on visits and telephone calls due to her disabilities to ensure she understood and could process information. Social workers carried out visits when Ms X’s care worker was available who could ensure Ms X understood everything. BCT allocated Ms X a family support worker who provided parenting support and childcare support. When the case closed in 2022 Z was attending nursery.
• BCT made a referral to Women’s Aid and a case discussion held but noted Ms X was not offered support.
• Ms X needed to raise her concerns about the children’s hospital directly to the hospital or NHS.
• BCT arranged for Ms X and Mr Y to attend the CIN meetings separately due to the risk of domestic abuse. In the CIN meetings for July and September 2022, it was recorded Ms X was happy to manage Z’s contact with Mr Y independently despite the intervention of a safety plan being offered to her.
• The social worker referred to no longer worked for BCT so could not discuss Ms X’s allegation with them.
• The Council apologised if Ms X felt unsupported when Z was born. It held the first CIN meeting a month after Z was born and noted Ms X did not raise any concerns about her treatment then.
• It found no evidence to support her claim she was discriminated against by BCT. Ms X had an ASC care package in place when Z was born and beyond. The social worker carried out joint visits with ASC to ensure Ms X’s individual needs were understood and respected. Ms X had several professionals supporting her with Z’s care recognising her additional needs. A CIN plan was in place as a supportive measure to enable her to care for Z. It was closed after 12 months when it was clear she could safety parent Z without the support of BCT but with universal services in place.
• The Council apologised for BCT for any distress or upset caused to her as part of the assessment and/or CIN process. It was not its intention to cause distress but to provide support and protection.
• BCT could not provide support to attend hospital appointments, and it provided childcare funding as part of the CIN plan for 12 weeks. It did not have resources to fund for the long term, but she could discuss other funding options with her health visitor.
18. Ms X was unhappy with the response and asked to go to stage 2 in March 2023. The Council asked Ms X to clarify her reasons for going to stage 2 but she advised she could not do so despite having an advocate to support her. It was agreed to put the complaint on hold at Ms X’s request until she was able to proceed. Ms X advised in July 2023 she was ready to progress the complaint and on 24 July 2023 agreed the complaints she wanted investigating. Ms X wanted financial compensation, an apology, a letter from BCT to help her move house, full time childcare funding for Z and a copy of all CIN meeting minutes as part of her desired outcomes.

Stage 2 complaint

19. The Council appointed an independent person (IP) and investigating officer (IO) to investigate the complaint. A statement of complaint was written in July 2023 which Ms X approved. The IO noted some interviews with staff were delayed due to the school summer holidays and staff leave. The IO report was finalised in early September 2023.
20. The IO report said:
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint an officer deliberately scheduled the CIN review meeting on Ms X’s due date for Z’s birth causing unnecessary distress.
• It made no finding a social worker caused Ms X psychological distress by trying to arrange a CIN meeting during her protected sleep time.
• It upheld Ms X’s complaint she repeatedly asked BCT to change her allocated social worker to a more experienced worker it but refused to help her with this.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint the actions of a social worker during a CIN meeting in February 2022 pushed her to become a victim of domestic abuse.
• It did not uphold the complaint a social worker failed to tell Mr Y he was not allowed to see Z during s 47 (safeguarding) enquiries.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint BCT could and should have rehoused her to live near her mother given conduct by Mr Z and severe repair issues at her property.
• It partially upheld Ms X’s complaint a social worker was unprofessional in their practice, as it was not clear they provided Ms X with CIN minutes from a meeting in February 2022.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint a social worker failed to submit a referral to Women’s Aid.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint BCT discriminated against her as a disabled mother by failing to provide the appropriate level of support for her and Z.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaints BCT discriminated against her as they failed to make the necessary adaptations to meetings etc to protect her rehabilitation time to manage her disability and support her childcare needs.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint BCT failed to support Z with childcare funding.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint BCT inappropriately closed her case and referred her to services that could not offer help or support.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint an officer caused her distress during a Family Group Conference by focusing on the possibility of BCT taking Z into care.
21. The IO recommended the Council:
• Apologised to Ms X for not providing her with the CIN minutes and these be sent to her and for not acknowledging her request to change social worker while with the ASTI team.
• Staff be reminded to keep contemporaneous records that are timely and factually accurate.
22. The IP agreed with the findings, conclusions and outcomes from the IO report and supported the recommendations.
23. The Council accepted the findings by the IP and IO and:
• Apologised for the areas of fault the IO identified
• Arranged to send Ms X the minutes of all CIN meetings.
• Arranged to remind staff to keep contemporaneous records that are timely and factually accurate.
24. The Council acknowledged the adjudication letter was sent on 16 November 2023. This was three/four weeks outside the 65 working day deadline. This was mainly due to the absence from work of the adjudication officer and Complaints Manager in September and October 2023. The Council apologised for the delay in the adjudication process in the letter.
25. Ms X was unhappy with the stage 2 response and asked the Council to consider the complaint by the Stage 3 review panel. The Council says BCT tried to arrange for the panel to take place within the 30-working day statutory deadline (2 January 2024). It provisionally arranged for a panel meeting to take place on 22 December 2023.
26. But Ms X could not provide her response to the stage 2 two weeks before the hearing, so the panel needed to be rescheduled. Unfortunately, the IO was not available to attend until March 2023 and it was considered necessary for the IO to be there. BCT rescheduled the panel hearing for March 2023.
27. Before the hearing Ms X was in contact with the chair of the panel and advised she would be unable to attend for any prolonged time due to her health condition. BCT arranged a telephone call between Ms X and the chair to discuss how the hearing would be run and what adjustments could be made to enable her to participate. After the call the chair advised Ms X confirmed she did not want to attend the meeting or receive any further communications from Customer Relations Service apart from the final response to her complaint.
28. The chair confirmed they had emailed Ms X encouraging her to attend and would read through her points if Ms X did not want to do so herself. But Ms X said she did not want to attend as it had all been too much for her. The chair sent Ms X the link to the panel meeting to access it online. And made Ms X aware she could attend at the last minute even though she had said she would not do so.

Stage 3 review panel

29. The panel considered Ms X response to the stage 2 investigation report. This contained Ms X’s view the findings of the IO and IP were illogical, biased in favour of BCT and failed to make any investigation into her medical conditions or consult any medical professionals involved in her care. Ms X also referred to her view there was a lack of ongoing support for her and Z. The panel considered the complaints in the stage 2 investigation. The chair spoke to the IO about Ms X’s medical conditions. The IO confirmed Ms X had not provided them with details of medical professionals. The IO did not consider it appropriate to speak to the medical professionals as part of the complaint investigation as it was clear from records what medical professionals were supporting Ms X with.
30. The panel agreed with the stage 2 investigation report and the complaint findings remained unchanged. The panel issued its findings a week after the hearing.
31. The panel made the following two recommendations to the Council including:
• BCT to apologise to Ms X for incorrectly recorded Z’s name in the stage 1 response.
• For BCT to ensure Ms X was provided with the details of agencies that can provide her with psychological support to enable constructive communications with Mr Y.
32. The Council accepted the recommendations of the stage 3 panel and issued the adjudication letter in April 2023. The Council acknowledged the letter was sent 11 working days outside the statutory deadline. It apologised for the delay in the letter. The Council also apologised BCT incorrectly recorded Z’s name in the stage 1 response and sent her details of organisations that provided family mediation services. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Enquiries

33. In response to my enquiries the Council provided evidence that the stage 2 and stage 3 recommendations had been carried out.

My findings

34. As previously explained, with complaints of this type, we only reinvestigate the substantive matters where we consider there is evidence of one or more fundamental flaws in how the statutory complaints procedure was carried out.
35. I see no evidence of such a flaw here. The Council escalated the complaint at each stage as Ms X requested it. It appointed an independent IO and IP to conduct stage 2, and an independent panel for stage 3, and followed each with an adjudication letter in which it accepted all findings and recommendations. Both the IO, IP and panel had access to the Council’s records and met with the available people relevant to the complaint. It addressed all the complaints made and set out the reasons for the findings made.
36. The Council has also provided evidence it has actioned the recommendations in the stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel review.
37. Taking this together, I do not consider I have any grounds to find the Council’s investigation was fundamentally flawed. Instead, I am satisfied it was robustly undertaken and drew logical findings from the evidence available. Under these circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the substantive complaints, because there is no reason to believe we would make substantially different findings. So, I am ending my investigation into this part of Ms X’s complaint.
38. Ms X says she was advised not to attend the panel meeting. The documents provided show BCT, and the chair of the panel encouraged Ms X to attend and were wiling to discuss how she could participate. However, it is recorded that Ms X advised she did not wish to attend the panel hearing. So, I am satisfied the evidence shows it was Ms X’s decision not to attend.
39. In response to my enquiries on the complaint the BCT says it is sorry Ms X was unhappy with the level of support she received following the birth of Z. But considers Ms X was seeking support BCT were not able to provide in relation to her own health/care needs and housing.
40. It has reflected on the delays Ms X experienced at all three stages of the complaint procedure. While some delays were due to Ms X pausing the complaint or providing extra information, it considered there were some avoidable delays by BCT. The Council has therefore offered Ms X a payment of £250 in recognition of any additional anxieties caused by these delays. I consider this is a suitable remedy for the avoidable delays Ms X faced caused by the BCT in the three-stage process and is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. Because of this I do not consider further investigation will add anything to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome for Ms X. So, I am ending my investigation into this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have ended my investigation. An independent investigation has already found no fault in what the Council did, and the Council has offered Ms X a suitable remedy for any additional anxieties caused by any avoidable delays in the independent investigation process. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issues would lead to a different outcome for Ms X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman