Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council were at fault for failing to complete the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Councils failings caused delay and unnecessary confusion for Ms Z. The Council should re-start the statutory children’s complaints procedure at stage two without delay. It should also make a symbolic payment to Ms Z and apologise to her.

The complaint

1. Ms Z complained about the Council failing to provide children’s social care support to her child, W, since 2018.
2. She says her complaint was not properly dealt with by the Council.
3. Ms Z says as well as her child missing out on support, fault by the Council has led to a significant decline in her mental health.

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 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)
5. Section 26D of the Local Government Act 1974 gives us the power to investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation if we think a member of the public has or may have suffered an injustice as a result.
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
7. 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

8. I have investigated how the Council handled Ms Z’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
9. 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, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns.
10. I have therefore not investigated whether the Council failed to provide adequate social care support to W.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the complaint and information provided by Ms Z and the Council.
12. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
13. Before proceeding to a final decision, I considered comments made by Ms Z and the Council on two draft decisions.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

14. 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.
15. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Councils can refuse to consider a complaint if a complainant says they intend to take legal action or if investigating a complaint could prejudice concurrent court proceedings. However, after the proceedings have ended, a complainant can resubmit the complaint for the council to consider.

What happened

20. At the start of February 2024 Ms Z, with the support of a legal representative, Mr Y, complained to the Council.
21. The Council made brief contact with Ms Z shortly after, but the complaint was not responded to.
22. At the end of February 2024 Mr Y wrote again to the Council asking it to respond to the complaint.
23. About one month later the Council wrote to Mr Y. Ms Z was unclear about whether this was a formal complaint response. Mr Y says the Council offered no explanation about issues complained of and no remedy to Ms Z.
24. At the end of April 2024 Ms Z asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. The request was not acknowledged.
25. During May 2024 Mr Y wrote to the Council asking for a response.
26. At the end of May 2024, the Council made its final response to Mr Y and Ms Z about Ms Z’s complaint. It said it had not received the escalation request at the end of April. The Council asked Mr Y to re-send it. However, it told Mr Y that if the matters were the same as those already investigated at stage one, it would not reinvestigate.
27. The Council also said it would make the decision about whether it would progress to stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure or whether it would offer another ‘local resolution’ response.
28. A few months later Mr Y complained on behalf of Ms Z to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Statutory children’s complaint procedure

29. Councils can only refuse to consider complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure in limited circumstances. It cannot refuse to escalate complaints to stage two or three.
30. Guidance says once a complaint has been completed at stage one, Councils must proceed to stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure if the complainant requests this.
31. The evidence confirms the Council was at fault for taking the approach it did to handling Ms Z’s complaint.
32. The Council said it did not receive a stage one complaint from Ms Z, or Mr Y on behalf of Ms Z. The Council said the first correspondence from Mr Y in February 2024 was a request for services not a complaint and was dealt with as such.
33. The original email from Mr Y to the Council focused upon the Councils role in providing social care intervention. It did not explicitly refer to a complaint. However, it was sent into the complaints department.
34. Two weeks later Mr Y wrote to the Council asking for an update on the complaint response. At that point the Council should have clarified with Mr Y whether he was making a formal complaint and processed his correspondence accordingly.
35. In the Council response to the initial draft decision on this complaint, it said the Council staff did not respond to Mr Y about the complaint response mid-February because it ‘assumed that the second email was a mistake.’
36. At the end of February Mr Y wrote to the Council again, asking for an update on the complaint response. The Council did not reply.
37. In February 2024 the Council missed several opportunities to properly log Ms Z’s complaint and make a response accordingly. This was fault by the Council.
38. In March Mr Y asked the Council for a complaint response.
39. The complaint was not acknowledged in the response by the Council to Mr Y. It referred to Ms Z’s request for intervention and signposted her accordingly. Again, the Council failed to acknowledge and properly record the complaint. This was fault by the Council.
40. Mr Y wrote to the Council mid-May 2024 asking for an update on the stage two complaint. At this point, a review of the complaint handling could have taken place. It did not.
41. Mr Y has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the stage two complaint made in April 2024. The Council maintain its position about not receiving a stage two complaint from Mr Y. It said it has no record of this.
42. The response sent to Mr Y by the Council at the end of May was confusing. It reiterated information already shared with Mr Y about accessing social care. It shared a copy of documentation asked for by Ms Z. It told Mr Y the stage two request had not been received. It told Mr Y that if any of the complaint points had already been addressed at stage one, the Council would not be able to consider them at stage two. It ended with ‘I can confirm that my email was in response to the issues that were raised as well as addressing the concerns you had raised in your associated correspondence(s).’
43. The Council acknowledged that this response was confusing, and the advice within the response incorrect. It said it appeared there had been confusion between the complaints department and Mr Y. It also referred to a possible issue with the Councils information technology (IT) system, which the Council told us had been addressed.
44. Despite the confusion between Mr Y and the complaints department, the complaint handling by the Council was poor. It failed to recognise that Mr Y was making a complaint, despite numerous references to it.
45. There were several missed opportunities between February and May 2024 where the Council could have acknowledged its early failing in the complaint handling and processed Mr Y’s correspondence properly. This was fault by the Council. It created unnecessary delay and confusion for Mr Y and Ms Z and led to Ms Z feeling she had no choice but to complain to the Ombudsman.
46. The Council said it has reminded its complaint team to read correspondence thoroughly and make sure it responds to every complaint point properly. It said it has also reminded staff of the complaint escalation process.
47. We appreciate the Councils efforts in looking into what happened and providing guidance to its staff. However, it is concerning that so many opportunities to process Ms Z’s complaint were missed.
48. In response to the initial draft decision about this complaint the Council said it was concerned it could not start stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure because it had “never received a Stage 1 complaint or a Stage 2 complaint.”
49. The evidence I have referred to suggest the Council did receive, at least, the stage one complaint.
50. The Council also questioned the symbolic payment to Ms Z, referring again to the complaint never having been received. This is not accurate.
51. The Council should re-start Ms Z’s complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. Its actions have caused significant delay for Ms Z and she has the right to an independent investigation into what has happened.
52. Ms Z made her first complaint to the Council at the start of February 2024. Ms Z has no resolution to her complaint, ten months on. The recommendation of a symbolic payment is reflective of the confusion caused by the Council and its failings in addressing Ms Z’s complaint properly.

Injustice to others

53. In the last six months we have investigated several complaints about the Council’s failure to properly complete the statutory children’s complaint procedure.
54. Rather than issuing further service improvement recommendations as part of this investigation I have decided to make formal enquiries of the Council under Section 26D of the Local Government Act 1974. I have requested data from the Council about its complaint handling via the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This is so I can decide whether there is any indication of potential widespread injustice to members of the public served by this Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. To remedy the injustice to Ms Z from fault by the Council, within four weeks of a final decision, it has agreed to take the following actions:
• Apologise to Ms Z in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
56. Pay Ms Z a symbolic payment of £350. This is £50 for every month there was a delay in progressing to stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure since April 2024.
57. Start stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure without further delay. Timescales set out in the statutory guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ should be adhered to at stage two and should Ms Z wish to further escalate her complaint, at stage three. If the investigation takes longer than 25 days at stage two, Ms Z should be informed of the reasons why and it should take no longer than 65 days to complete.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms Z.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman