The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider the impact of domestic abuse when carrying out a child and family assessment in 2020. This complaint has been investigated using the children’s statutory complaints process. There was no fault with that investigation, and it is unlikely I could achieve anything more by further investigation. The Council was at fault for a delays in the complaints process and a delay in implementing some of the stage 3 panel’s recommendations. It has apologised and offered to pay Ms X £300 for the injustice caused by the delays, which is appropriate.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider the impact of domestic abuse when carrying out a child and family assessment in 2020. This caused her distress. She said it also meant the Council failed to correctly identify the children’s needs and the support they required.
Ms X also complained the Council failed to implement the recommendations from a stage 3 panel in 2021, despite agreeing to do so. This caused her frustration, and she was put to additional time and trouble pursuing this.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) We would not usually investigate complaints about events more than 12 months before the complaint to us. In this case, Ms X complained about events from 2017. The Council limited its own investigation to events 12 months before she complained in April 2020. That complaint primarily concerned an assessment completed in March 2020, following a referral in December 2019. Ms X did not complain to us until May 2022, although the Council’s complaints process was completed in October 2021. She said this was because she had struggled to express her concerns in writing.
I have exercised discretion to consider events from December 2019, although the scope of my investigation will be limited because the key concerns about the assessment have already been investigated using the children’s statutory complaints process, as I will explain below. I am satisfied there are sufficient records available to enable me to reach a robust and defensible decision.
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) 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 considered: the information Ms X provided, and spoke to her about her complaint; the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries; relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
Relevant law and guidance Children’s services Most children can be supported through universal services: these are services available to all children and their families. Such services can be provided by various organisations, including councils, schools or health bodies.
Child in need: Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. Where the council decides to provide services to a child in need, it should develop a child in need plan, and keep this under review.
A child is in need if: they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or they are disabled.
Child protection: Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. They may decide to support the child through a child protection plan.
Children’s statutory complaints process 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.
Our approach 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 Ms X lives with her two children, having separated from her former partner, Mr Y, following domestic abuse. The Council had considered reports of domestic abuse and the impact of this on the children over several years but had decided this did not meet the threshold for involvement by children’s social care.
In late 2019, the Council received a referral from another agency The referral was based on information from Ms X, which suggested the children were at risk of emotional abuse from Mr Y. The Council allocated a social worker, officer 1, to carry out a child and family assessment. Officer 1 spoke with Ms X, Mr Y, each child separately, and a member of staff from each of their schools.
In the assessment, Officer 1 recorded the history of domestic abuse. They said Ms X had made many allegations over some years, and although it had not been possible to substantiate them, they recognised that by its very nature domestic abuse may be impossible to prove. They recognised the continuing impact of those experiences on Ms X and that ongoing contact with Mr Y, required to facilitate his contact with the children, had a retraumatising effect. They also recognised the cultural context and the fact that cultural norms meant Ms X was not supported by her community.
Officer 1 concluded that, although the children were suffering a degree of emotional distress, this was in relation to ongoing parental conflict over contact arrangements, which was a matter for the court to determine. They noted the children could be supported by universal services, including support already identified through their schools, and that there was no role for children’s social care. This view was supported by officer 1’s line manager, officer 2.
Ms X was unhappy with the assessment and complained. She was particularly concerned that Mr Y may have manipulated officer 1, leading them to conclude the case was one of an estranged couple arguing, rather than a domestic abuse case. Her concerns were initially considered informally by officer 2. They were subsequently considered using the children’s statutory complaints process. It took three months to respond to the complaint at stage 1. The Council apologised for this, explaining it had taken longer than envisaged to investigate the matter. It did send an email explaining this after two months, stating when the response would be sent.
The complaint was investigated at stage 2, within the statutory timeframe. The complaints were not upheld. Ms X remained unhappy and complained at stage 3. She provided her reasons for requesting this in early May 2021. The stage 3 panel should have been held within 30 days of the request. It was not held until September 2021.
The stage 3 panel confirmed four elements of the complaint were “not upheld”, and one was “not determined” due to a lack of evidence. It agreed with the finding at stage 2 that the children’s needs could be met through universal services. It changed the finding on one complaint from “not upheld” to “partially upheld”. This related to a complaint that officer 1 had not made notes during the meeting with Ms X and that he had not recorded that he had discussed with her how her views would be recorded, for example, that notes would be completed immediately after the meeting. It recommended the Council should take the following action: contact the safeguarding lead at the children’s school to carry out a wellbeing check for the children and report back to Ms X. Ms X accepted that the children did not need supporting through a child in need plan at that point; apologise for the partially upheld complaint and share the learning with relevant staff; request details from Ms X about a new issue she raised concerning whether it shared incorrect information with the agency that made the referral in 2019, consider if further action was needed, and report back to Ms X; and request details from Ms X about whether there were inaccuracies in the chronology on the stage 2 report, consider if further action was needed, and report back to Ms X.
The Council wrote to Ms X in October 2021. It apologised for the partially upheld issue and set out the action it would take about the other recommendations. In her complaint to us, Ms X said the Council did not contact her to request details about the two new issues she had raised at stage 3.
In response to our preliminary enquiries, the Council accepted it had not taken the agreed action and said it welcomed the opportunity to do so. It has since provided evidence that it wrote to Ms X about this in September 2022, asking her to provide further information so it could consider the new issues through its complaints process. It apologised for the delay in taking this action and offered to pay her £300 for the distress caused.
The Council has also reminded relevant staff about the process to follow to ensure that stage 3 recommendations are implemented without delay. It has also shared the general learning from this complaint with managers and the learning is being written into new practice standards expected to be implemented in November 2022.
My findings
Concerns about the assessment in 2020 Ms X remains concerned the Council did not properly consider the domestic abuse she reported when carrying out the assessment in 2020. The assessment report shows officer 1 accepted there may have been domestic abuse and that ongoing contact with Mr Y would have a retraumatising effect for Ms X. They also acknowledged the cultural context in which the domestic abuse had occurred. However, after speaking to all relevant parties, including the children and both schools, they concluded their emotional distress related to issues around inconsistent contact.
The Council’s role here was not to decide whether domestic abuse had taken place, nor to determine appropriate contact arrangements for the children or which parent was to blame for inconsistencies in contact arrangements. Its role was to decide whether there were ongoing risks to the children that required action by children’s social care. It concluded that the children could be supported by universal services and that the contact arrangements were for the court to determine.
The way it reached that conclusion was fully explored at stage 2, including in interviews with officer 1, officer 2 and relevant staff from both schools, and the complaints were not upheld. The stage 2 investigation was reviewed at stage 3, and the complaint was again not upheld. I have not identified any fault in the way the complaint was investigated, and it is unlikely that further investigation by me would lead to a different outcome, particularly given the lapse of time since the events complained of. Therefore, I will not consider this complaint further.
Complaints handling and Stage 3 recommendations There was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1, for which the Council has apologised. The Council responded at stage 2 within the required timescales and its response was comprehensive, as explained above.
There was a delay in arranging the stage 3 panel, which should have been held within 30 days of Ms X providing her reasons for requesting this in late May but was not held until September 2021. Whilst I appreciate it can be difficult to find a date that all relevant attendees can make, this delay was sufficient to amount to fault.
There was a further delay in implementing the recommendations of the stage 3 panel between October 2021 and September 2022. This was further fault, which meant Ms X was put to the time and trouble of complaining to us. The Council has already apologised for this delay and offered to pay Ms X £300 for the injustice caused, which is an appropriate remedy. I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to prevent such a delay occurring again.
Agreed action
Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will: apologise to Ms X for the delay in arranging the stage 3 panel; and pay her the £300 it offered to remedy its delay in carrying out the recommendations of the stage 3 panel, if it has not already done so, or provide us with evidence it has made the payment or Ms X has refused it, as appropriate.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I have found fault in relation to a delay in arranging the stage 3 panel and a delay in implementing the stage 3 panel’s recommendations. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman