The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Following an independent investigation into Mrs B’s complaint about children’s social care at the Council, the Council was not at fault for what it did to remedy her injustice. It completed most of the recommended actions and offered her a suitable financial remedy. It was not at fault for not completing the remaining recommended actions, as Mrs B herself wanted to wait until she had approached the Ombudsman.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council failed to provide social care support to her family when a child who lived with her under a Special Guardianship Order took an overdose of paracetamol.
Mrs B complains that the Council used unprofessional language both in an internal email and in an assessment. She also says the assessment was full of inaccuracies.
Mrs B says the Council sought information about her from another authority without her knowledge or consent.
Mrs B also says the Council took too long to deal with her complaint.
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. 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mrs B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Mrs B 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
If a council has investigated something under the statutory complaints procedure, 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.
The Council considered Ms B’s complaint at all three stages of the procedure and accepted failings in almost all of her complaint. It concluded that it had failed to meet acceptable standards for all of the complaint points set out in the opening section of this decision statement.
The Council apologised to Mrs B, and agreed to: allow her to provide a statement setting out the inaccuracies which it included in its assessment, to be included in the child’s social care records; remind all of its staff to ensure that their language in all communications – even internal emails – is professional and factual; and make a payment of £1,000 to Mrs B to recognise its delay in dealing with her complaint.
The review panel at stage 3 of the complaints procedure also noted that the Council was in the process of reviewing how it dealt with complaints.
As the Council has properly considered this matter under the statutory complaints procedure, and as there do not appear to be obvious flaws in the considerations of the complaint by either the stage 2 investigator or the stage 3 review panel, there is nothing I can add to the Council’s findings.
I have, however, looked into whether the Council has completed the actions it agreed in response to Mrs B’s complaints. I have also considered whether she has any injustice which remains unremedied by the Council.
Actions agreed following Mrs B’s complaint The Council has not yet put a statement on its records which sets out the inaccuracies in its assessment. However, Mrs B has not yet provided one and, by her own admission, was waiting for the Ombudsman to investigate before doing so. This was not the Council’s fault. Mrs B can still provide the statement if she wishes.
The Council has not yet provided Mrs B with her financial remedy, and she says she did not refuse it. This may well be the case; however, she approached us six days after the Council’s complaint response, and in her complaint form – which we provided to the Council – she said its proposed financial remedy was “inadequate”. In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Council to delay the payment pending the outcome of our investigation.
I have considered whether the payment was satisfactory later in this decision statement.
The Council said, in its stage 2 adjudication letter in December 2021, that it would email its children’s social care staff and remind them to ensure all communications are professional and factual. It failed to do this until after I asked about it. However – as Mrs B herself notes – this reminder should be considered “basic practice for professionals anyway”. Consequently, despite the delay, I do not consider this action to be significant enough to justify a finding of fault.
The stage 3 panel noted that the Council was reviewing how it responded to complaints. This review, which was, in fact, an external review undertaken by the Ombudsman, was completed in June 2022. It included a review of children’s social care complaints, and recommended remedial action where necessary. There is nothing I can add to this.
Remaining injustice The Council has offered £1,000 to Mrs B specifically to recognise the delays in its complaints procedure. This suggests no financial remedy has been offered for the injustice caused by the Council’s other failings – including its failure to provide proper support to Mrs B’s family.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that, although most of our recommended payments for distress will be between £100 and £300, we can go up to £1,000 if the distress was ‘severe or prolonged’. Only in exceptional circumstances would we recommend an even higher payment.
As the Council’s offer of a financial remedy is at the top of our usual scale for severe and prolonged distress, my view is that – whatever the Council originally intended the remedy for – it adequately recognises the distress Mrs B suffered in total from the Council’s failings. Consequently, I will not recommend a higher payment.
I have not identified any necessary further recommendations for the Council, so I will complete my investigation.
Final decision
Following an independent investigation into Mrs B’s complaint about children’s social care at the Council, the Council was not at fault for what it did to remedy her injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman