The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained communication from the Council was poor relating to its care of her son, Y. Miss X also complained about delays in the complaint process and issues regarding contact with Y. Miss X says the Councils actions caused her anxiety and distress. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Miss X complained communication from the Council was poor relating to its care of her son, Y. Miss X also complained about delays in the complaint process and issues regarding contact with Y. Miss X says the Councils actions caused her anxiety and distress.
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 a Council’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 read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
Miss 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
Background information Complaint handling 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.
In February 2022 the Ombudsman issued practitioner guidance on the Children’s statutory complaints process.
Child protection arrangements 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 enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
The Council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in: no further action; a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the Council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says Councils shall provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because: there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them; they have been lost or abandoned; or the person who has been caring for them being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.
Councils cannot accommodate a child under section 20 if a person holding parental responsibility objects and is willing and able to care for the child or arrange care for the child.
Councils need to distinguish between private arrangements made between parents and carers, and arrangements in which the child is accommodated under the Children Act 1989 and so is a looked after child. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says councils shall provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because: there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them; they have been lost or abandoned; or the person who has been caring for them being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.
Councils need to distinguish between private arrangements made between parents and carers, and arrangements in which the child is accommodated under the Children Act 1989 and so is a looked after child.
What happened This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
Y has previously been subject to a child protection plan and has spent periods living with his godmother. Miss X engaged with the plan and after a period of being moved to a child in need plan, the Council closed the case.
Miss X told the Council in May 2019, Y was living with a family friend, Mrs B under a private fostering arrangement (PFA). In October 2019 the PFA broke down, Y returned to live with Miss X.
Y moved in with Mrs B again in December 2020 and the initial visit noted he was happy with the living arrangement. Miss X retained parental responsibility for Y.
In January 2021, Y was admitted to hospital for an operation. Miss X told the Council she had ended the PFA with Mrs B. She stated once Y had recovered, he would return to her home.
In February, Y left his mothers home following an argument and went to Mrs B’s home. Mrs B stated she could not accommodate him due to the previous breakdown in her relationship with Miss X. Y returned to Miss X’s home but had another argument with her and left again. He returned to Mrs B’s home. The following day, Miss X refused to allow Y to live with her. Y continued to live with Mrs B. The Council gathered information and it held a strategy meeting to address concerns about Miss X’s parenting. The meeting agreed the threshold was met to start section 47 enquiries. The result of the enquiries was the Council would begin legal action to the court to place Y in the care of the Council.
In March 2021, Miss X signed a section 20 agreement allowing Y to be accommodated and he remained with Mrs B. He became a looked after child, but Miss X retained parental responsibility for him. The Council gathered information for the Looked After Child (LAC) review.
Miss X submitted her complaint to the Council in April 2021. The complaint stated Miss X felt the Council did not complete the section 47 enquiries with the appropriate information and the Council was constantly threatening her with legal action. She complained the Council was not keeping her up to date with Y’s health and education. She complained the Council kept requesting Y’s birth certificate before it would agree to her receiving a copy of the section 47 report. Miss X also alleged the Council was making decisions in the interest of Mrs B as Y was living in her home and not in Y’s interests.
The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in May 2021. The Council confirmed it would not consider complaints about the section 47 enquiries in the statutory complaint’s procedure. Other elements of the complaints were however progressed under the statutory complaints process. The Council confirmed it had followed the safeguarding process. The Council shared the section 47 report after a manager agreed to overrule the usual process and Miss X was not required to present Y’s birth certificate before the document was released. The Council stated it had followed procedures but communication from the social worker could have been better. It partially upheld these parts of the complaints because of the communication issues and contact had not progressed quickly enough. The Council confirmed it had allocated a new social worker and manager and communication would improve because of this change. The new social worker would inform other professionals to contact Miss X directly to ensure she was regularly updated about Y’s progress.
Throughout the year Y was reported missing several times and was arrested and released in May. He moved into a children’s home in May 2021. Y stated he did not want contact with Miss X. A legal planning meeting decided to apply to the court for a care order as section 20 accommodation was no longer appropriate for Y.
At the end of May, Miss X requested the Council escalate the complaint to stage two.
The court granted the Council an interim care order in July 2021 and a final care order in August 2021.
The Council completed its stage two investigation in December 2021. The stage two response did not uphold any part of Miss X’s complaint. The response stated the Council had followed its procedures when it required a copy of Y’s birth certificate before it would share the section 47 report. A manager made the decision to release the assessment document when Miss X was unable to locate the birth certificate. The Council stated communication had been difficult due to Mrs B not being given information regarding Y and the relationship between Miss X and Mrs B had broken down. The Council acknowledged the SW was often trying to co-ordinate communication between Miss X and professionals involved in Y’s care. This on occasions led to delay and communications being missed. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint about communication problems and confirmed the social worker had acted appropriately and at the time of the investigation, Y did not want contact with Miss X. The Council stated there had been a delay in responding to the stage two complaint, but this delay had not had a damaging effect on Y. An independent person agreed with the investigating officers report.
Miss X asked the Council to progress the complaint to stage three. The Council held the review panel meeting at the start of February 2022 and communicated its response to Miss X within two weeks. The review panel meeting went through Miss X’s complaint, and all members of the panel agreed with the stage two investigation. The review panel agreed the delay in the stage two response was due to a lack of investigating officers and high workloads. The Council apologised and offered a time and trouble remedy of £100 stating this was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
Miss X is not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to fully apologise and compensate her and Y for its failings.
In response to my enquiries the Council stated it had followed procedures and legislation. It stated it had completed the three-stage complaint process and not upheld the complaint. The Council apologised for the delay and had offered a time and trouble payment.
My findings
We do not re-investigate a complaint which has been through the statutory children's complaint procedure unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
The stage two investigating officer (IO) carried out a thorough and detailed investigation which was overseen by the independent person. The investigating officer spoke to Miss X as well as Council officers involved in the events complained about. The investigating officer also considered relevant documentation relating to Miss X’s case.
The IO addressed each of Miss X’s complaints and provided a decision on whether to uphold the complaint. Each decision was supported by the evidence available.
The stage three review considered the adequacy of the stage two investigation and reached findings on each element of Miss X’s complaint. It also made a recommendation about the delay Miss X had experienced. Again, these decisions were supported by the evidence available.
The Council agreed with the stage three findings and offered Miss X £100 in recognition of the delay completing the stage two investigation.
There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Miss X’s complaint.
I recognise the situation has been distressing for Miss X and she will be disappointed with the Councils conclusions. But its decisions were taken without fault.
The Council offered a £100 remedy because of the delay completing the stage two response. This remedy is in line with our guidance on remedies. I cannot add to this.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault. There was some slight delay in dealing with the complaint, but the Council has remedied this appropriately and it is not significant enough to warrant a finding of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman