Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment and handling of his son’s support needs, and about delays handling his complaints. Mr X said it caused distress and put strain on his son because of numerous reassessments. We find the Council at fault for delays in the statutory complaints procedure. We are satisfied the Council has already accepted these faults and remedied the injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained about the Council’s assessment and handling of his son’s support needs. He also complained about delays handling his complaints.
2. Mr X said a lack of social care provision impacted on his son. He said it caused distress, and put strain on his son because of numerous reassessments.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. Mr X complained about how the Council handled four complaints. I have investigated how the Council handled three of these complaints, which I set out below.
4. However, when Mr X complained to us, one of these complaints (which I refer to as Complaint 3, made in June 2022) had not started stage two of the statutory children’s complaints process.
5. As I set out below, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. In this case, the Council’s investigation of this complaint is ongoing. I consider it reasonable to give the Council an opportunity to complete its investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
6. For this reason, I have not investigated the part of Mr X’s complaint about Complaint 3.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
10. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council 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 council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
11. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Statutory children’s complaints

14. The government published statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, which sets out a three-stage procedure that councils follow when considering certain complaints about children’s social care services.
15. At stage one of the procedure, the council considers the complaint and should try and resolve the complaint as quickly as possible. The council should also try and agree a way forward with the complainant.
16. At stage two, the council appoints an independent Investigating Officer to investigate the complaint, and an Independent Person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. The council will appoint a senior manager to adjudicate on the findings.
17. The guidance sets out timescales within which certain actions should be completed.
18. The guidance says that once a complaint is made, the council should make an initial attempt to resolve matters within ten working days, unless an extension is agreed. The guidance says the maximum time a stage one should take is 20 working days. After this deadline, a complainant can ask for the complaint to be dealt with at stage two.
19. If the complaint is not resolved, or if parties agree, then the complaint should be investigated at stage two of the complaints process. Stage two begins either when the complainant asks for it, or where parties agree that stage one is not appropriate. However, if the complainant amends the written record of the complaint, the stage two timescales start from the date the complaint is finalised.
20. The guidance says a council has 25 working days to produce the Investigating Officer’s report and its own adjudication on the Investigating Officer’s findings. The guidance says this can be extended to 65 working days.
21. The Investigating Officer’s report (stage two report) should include details of their findings and recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant.
22. The complainant can then ask the council to convene an independent review panel. This forms the third stage of the complaints procedure. The review panel will consider the adequacy of the independent stage two investigation.
23. The guidance says a council has 30 working days to arrange and hold the stage three review panel. The panel has five working days to issue its findings. The council then has 15 working days to respond to the panel’s findings.
24. If a council has investigated a complaint under this statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless we consider the investigation was flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

The Council’s corporate complaints procedure

25. The Council’s corporate complaints procedure says it will respond to complaints within 28 calendar days.

What happened

26. The timelines of Mr X’s complaints overlap. To avoid confusion, I have separated them out below to outline each complaint separately.

Complaint 1

27. In February 2021, Mr X complained twice to the Council about its assessments of his son’s disabilities. The Council said it would respond to both complaints together. I refer to this as Complaint 1.
28. In early March, the Council told Mr X there would be a delay responding to his complaint, and explained why. At the end of March, the Council sent Mr X its stage one response.
29. In April, Mr X asked the Council to investigate this complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
30. In July, Mr X chased the Council for its stage two response. The Council replied, explaining the reasons for the delay. In October and November, Mr X talked to the stage two Investigating Officer and Independent Officer about his complaint.
31. In early February 2022, the Council sent Mr X the stage two report and its stage two adjudication. The Investigating Officer made recommendations to the Council. The Council accepted it was at fault, including that there had been delays at stage two, and offered Mr X a payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults it found. It also apologised to Mr X.
32. Mr X then asked the Council to investigate this complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints procedure.
33. In July, Mr X complained about delays to the stage three process. I refer to this as Complaint 4, and discuss it below.
34. At the end of August, the Council held the stage three review panel. The panel noted that there had been delays at stage three, and that this was being dealt with by the Council separately (see Complaint 4, below). The panel made recommendations to the Council, including making a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused by the faults found.
35. In September, the Council sent Mr X its response to the stage three review panel. It said how it would meet the panel’s recommendations.
36. In October, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Complaint 2

37. In January 2022, Mr X complained to the Council about different issues relating to his son’s needs. I refer to this as Complaint 2.
38. In February, the Council sent Mr X its stage one response. Mr X asked the Council to investigate his complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
39. In April and May, Mr X asked the Council to amend the details of Complaint 2 and add to it.
40. In August, the Council sent Mr X the stage two report and its stage two adjudication. The Investigating Officer made recommendations to the Council to improve its service. The Council accepted these findings and recommendations.
41. In September, Mr X asked the Council to investigate this complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints procedure.
42. The Council held the stage three review panel in October. The panel made recommendations to the Council, including apologising to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused by the faults found.
43. The Council sent Mr X its response to the stage three review panel. It apologised, and said how it would meet the panel’s recommendations.

Complaint 3

44. In June 2022, Mr X complained about assessments of his son. I refer to this as Complaint 3. As I have set out above, I am not investigating how the Council handled Complaint 3. This is because it is premature. This information is for here for context.

Complaint 4

45. In July 2022, Mr X complained about delays to the stage three process for Complaint 1. I refer to this as Complaint 4. The Council dealt with this complaint under its corporate complaints procedure.
46. In August, the Council sent its stage one complaint response. It apologised that it had not yet been able to hold the stage three review panel for Complaint 1. It said it had learnt from this complaint and would review staffing levels.
47. Mr X then asked the Council to investigate Complaint 4 at stage two of its corporate complaints procedure.
48. In September, the Council sent Mr X its stage two response. It recognised there had been delays in the stage three process for Complaint 1 which caused him injustice. It apologised for the injustice caused and said it would make a payment to reflect this. It said it had consulted the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies when considering how to remedy the injustice.

Analysis

49. As I have said above, if a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, we do not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless we consider the investigation was flawed. Instead, we will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

Complaint 1

50. I consider the stage two investigation was thorough, well-balanced, and proportionate. I do not find it was flawed, so I have not re-investigated the original complaints. I have therefore investigated whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two independent investigation and stage three review panel.
51. I find the Council properly considered the findings, and met all the recommendations made, at stage two and stage three.
52. Mr X also complains about delays.
53. Mr X complained twice to the Council in February 2021. The Council responded shortly after the second complaint to say it would respond to both complaints together, and there would be a delay. I find it was appropriate to address both complaints together, and this is evidence of good practice. The Council then sent its stage one response at the end of March.
54. The guidance says the maximum time a stage one should take is 20 working days. I find the stage one response was a few days late. This is not significant enough to constitute fault.
55. The guidance says a council has a maximum of 65 working days to provide the stage two report and its adjudication.
56. Mr X asked for stage two in April 2021. The Council sent the stage two report and its adjudication in February 2022. This is a delay of six months, which is fault.
57. I find the Investigating Officer kept in regular contact with Mr X, which is good practice.
58. I find the Council remedied the injustice caused by this fault by making a payment to Mr X and apologising. I am satisfied the amount of the payment was in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
59. There were delays holding the stage three review panel, which I will address below (see Complaint 4).
60. The Council should have issued its response to the stage three panel’s findings within ten working days of the panel meeting. I find the Council sent this one week late. This is not significant enough to constitute fault.

Complaint 2

61. I consider the stage two investigation was thorough, well-balanced, and proportionate. I do not find it was flawed, so I have not re-investigated the original complaints. I have therefore investigated whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three panel.
62. I find the Council properly considered the findings, and met all the recommendations made, at stages two and three.
63. Mr X also complains about delays.
64. The Council sent its stage one complaint response one week over the 20 working days set out in the guidance. I do not consider this is significant enough to constitute fault.
65. Mr X asked the Council to investigate his complaint at stage two in mid-February. This is usually when the ‘clock’ starts. However, as I have said above, the guidance says that if a complainant amends the written record of the complaint, the stage two timescales start from the date the complaint was finalised.
66. In this case, Mr X asked to add further points to his complaint, and make further amendments, in April and May. The Council says Mr X did not return or sign the statement of complaint, so it took his email reply to the Investigating Officer at the end of May as confirmation to start the investigation. I find this is appropriate and in line with the guidance.
67. For this reason, I find the ‘clock’ started at the end of May. The Council issued the stage two investigation and its adjudication at the end of August, which was within 65 days from the end of May. Therefore, I do not find any delays at stage two of the process.
68. I find that both the stage three review panel, and the Council’s response to the panel, were within the timescales set out in the guidance.
69. I therefore do not find the Council at fault here.

Complaint 4

70. Complaint 4 is about delays in the statutory stage three process for Complaint 1.
71. The Council found that the stage three review panel was delayed. It recognised this was fault, and this fault caused Mr X injustice (the distress caused by the delay). The Council considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies when deciding how to remedy this injustice. This is good practice.
72. I consider the payment the Council made Mr X was both suitable and appropriate, considering the different factors in this case. I also find it was in line with our guidance on remedies.
73. Mr X also complains about delays in complaint handling.
74. I have considered the Council’s complaints policy which says it will send responses within 28 calendar days. I find that the Council sent both the stage one and stage two responses within 28 calendar days.
75. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault for delays handling Mr X’s complaints. This caused injustice. I find the Council has already remedied the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman