The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out the recommendations it identified during its response to their complaint about the way the Council assessed their children’s needs. The Council accepted it was at fault in how it managed some of Mr and Mrs X’s case. There was no fault in how the Council made the service improvements it identified.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed, without explanation, to carry out the recommendations it identified during stage two and three of the statutory children’s complaint process. This included that the Council failed to rectify data it held about them and their children. Mr and Mrs X stated this caused them distress, frustration and time and trouble.
What I have investigated I have investigated the actions of the Council in investigating and responding to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaint process. I have not considered how the Council rectified their data. I have provided a further explanation in paragraph 42.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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) 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) The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about data protection and data rectification. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about data handling, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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.
How I considered this complaint
I read the documents provided by Mr and Mrs X and discussed the complaint with them on the phone.
I considered the documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries and discussed the complaint with it on the phone.
I considered the statutory guidance Getting the Best from Complaints and our Guidance on remedies.
Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance Safeguarding children Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils must provide services for children in need of support for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. This is sometimes called a child in need (CIN) assessment.
Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such child protection enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CIN) and implementing a safety plan.
Statutory complaint procedure 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.
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 investigator and an independent person 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.
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.
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.
What happened
Background
Mr and Mrs X have two children of school age; Y and Z. In September 2020 Y’s school made a safeguarding referral. The Council considered the information and decided it would complete a child in need (CIN) assessment.
A social work manager reviewed the information the Council had available and decided that a strategy meeting was needed to understand the risks to the child. The strategy meeting decided a child protection enquiry was required. Social Worker A began assessing the family’s needs.
Mr and Mrs X complained about Social Worker A in October. They said information in the assessment was incorrect and the case should be closed and removed from the records. The manager responded and said Social Worker A would not visit again; Social Worker B would continue work with the family.
The Council held an initial child protection conference (ICPC) in November 2020 and Y and Z were made subject of a child protection plan.
Y and Z were removed from the child protection plan in January 2021 and were supported with a CIN plan until July 2021.
Complaint process Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about the child protection assessment in October 2020. After contact from Mr and Mrs X, the Council agreed to go straight to stage two of the statutory children’s complaint process. Mr and Mrs X provided a detailed document of the inaccuracies and concerns they had about the assessment.
The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). They met with Mr and Mrs X in March 2021 and discussed the complaint.
The IO set out the statement of complaint in April 2021. There were 21 points of complaint about how the Council: had conducted and written its assessment of the children’s needs; communicated with Mr and Mrs X; conducted the ICPC; delayed in amending factual inaccuracies; and delayed in progressing the complaint through the complaint procedure.
The IO considered all of the available documentary evidence, interviewed key Council staff members, and Mr and Mrs X. They completed the investigation in September 2021. The investigation upheld 13 elements of complaint and partly upheld 1. It did not uphold six elements and made no finding on one element. The IP agreed with the IO’s findings.
It recommended the Council should: apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the failings and offer a symbolic payment to recognise the delay in the complaint procedure and the distress and time and trouble they experienced; provide relevant staff with extracts of the report for them to reflect on their practice and identify any additional learning; consider producing written leaflets that explained key trigger points in the assessment process and explained the purpose of a CIN assessment; improve communications with families and the accurate and timely recording of case records; improve written assessments in terms of format, structure and content and distinguishing fact from opinion; and improve complaint handling within children’s services and by the Council.
The Council wrote an adjudication letter to Mr and Mrs X. It agreed with the IO’s findings. It said it had changed some procedures and was producing an action plan to ensure it did not repeat the faults. It apologised and offered Mr and Mrs X £400 to recognise the distress caused and the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Mr and Mrs X raised concerns about the Council’s letter and requested a stage three panel. They asked for: further information on the changes the Council intended to make to procedures; £200,000 for their time and trouble and lost earnings in pursuing the complaint, and £2 million in compensation for the distress; the resignation of four senior members of staff; and an overhaul of process and procedure in children’s services.
The independent stage three panel considered the complaint in December 2021. It agreed with the findings in the stage two investigation. The Panel commented that the Council’s adjudication letter was brief and did not go into depth about the upheld complaints or Mr and Mrs X’s desired outcomes.
The panel recommended the Council should: consider providing Mr and Mrs X with further information on the points they felt were unclear from the investigation; apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the upheld complaints; respond to their request for a full overhaul of the systems and process in children’s social care and training for staff; review the figure of £200 for financial distress offered to Mr and Mrs X and consider a proportionate increase; consider increasing the offer of £200 to Mr and Mrs X for time and trouble to £400; respond to Mr and Mrs X’s request to audit the department’s activity over the last ten years; and confirm to Mr and Mrs X it considered the recommendations made at stage two.
The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X in January 2022. It apologised for the upheld complaints. It stated it had amended incorrect records and noted where there were points of difference on the case record. It provided further clarity on the points Mr and Mrs X were unclear about. It commented that it had not answered each individual point but included related items together. It stated it had reviewed the financial offers and considered the original amount of £400 in total to be fair and in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
The Council said it included the recommendations and learning from the complaint at stage two in its service improvement plans (SIP) which were reviewed every three months. It said staff training in procedures and case recording had been included in the SIP. It stated it regularly completed quality assessments of its social work including assessments and would not undertake any additional work requested by Mr and Mrs X.
The Council sent Mr and Mrs X a cheque for £400. Mr and Mrs X declined to accept the symbolic payment.
Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr and Mrs X complained to us. They said the Council failed to provide evidence it had completed the service improvements and procedural change it identified as necessary following their complaint. Mr and Mrs X said they believed there were systemic issues within children’s social care that were not being addressed.
In response to my enquiries the Council provided evidence it had implemented all of the learning from Mr and Mrs X’s complaint except for producing the written leaflets. The Council's records show the leaflets were part of its planned work schedule. They were due to be completed by September 2022.
My findings
The Council's stage two investigation was thorough, robust and well-evidenced. The recommendations logically followed on from its findings. The stage two investigation found the Council at fault in how it managed some of Mr and Mrs X’s case. As there was no fault in how the Council carried out the complaint investigation, I have no reason to question its findings.
I have reviewed all the documentary evidence the Council provided about its service improvements. I am satisfied the Council appropriately implemented and embedded the service improvements that were identified and agreed during the complaint process, except for the leaflets. The Council has confirmed it aimed to complete the leaflets by September 2022. This was suitable action so the Council was not at fault.
The Council apologised to Mr and Mrs X for each upheld complaint. The symbolic financial payment it offered was in line with our guidance on remedies so it was not at fault. In any event, Mr and Mrs X said they considered £200,000 for time and trouble and £2 million compensation for distress to be appropriate amounts. The Ombudsman does not issue compensation in a way a court would do so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs X want.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council found fault in its own actions through its statutory complaint procedure and has taken appropriate action to improve its service and remedy the injustice it caused.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated how the Council rectified data it held about Mr and Mrs X and their children. This is because Mr and Mrs X have already complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office and that is the appropriate body to deal with that matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman