The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms X’s complaint through the statutory complaint process.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the way the Council considered her complaint through the statutory complaint process. She was unhappy with the Council’s adjudication and the remedies offered for the injustice it caused.
She said the Council caused distress to her family and this was not properly recognised or remedied in the Councils response.
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 spoke to Ms X and considered the information she provided with her complaint. We made enquiries with the Council and considered its response with relevant law and guidance.
Ms 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
Law and guidance Statutory Complaints Section 26(3) of the Children Act, 1989 says all functions of the local authority under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
The handling and consideration of complaints under the Children Act 1989 consists of three stages: Stage 1 - Local Resolution, Stage 2 - Investigation and Stage 3 - Review Panel. (Department of Education, 2006, Statutory guidance for local authority children’s services on representations and complaints procedures) At stage two an investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent and fair.
The IO writes a stage two report which includes: details of findings, conclusions and outcomes are against each point of complaint (i.e. “upheld” or “not upheld”); and recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant as appropriate.
Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as Adjudicating Officer (AO) and consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The AO will prepare a response to the reports and should invite the complainant to an adjudication meeting, either before or after writing their adjudication. In the AO’s response, the complainant should be informed of their right to approach the Ombudsman at any time (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
What happened What follows is summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
Ms X has a child, Y. She separated from Y’s father and there was court action in relation to Y’s contact with their father. In April 2021 the court directed the Council to complete an assessment as part of the court process. A social worker completed the assessment and produced a report for court.
Ms X complained to the Council in May 2021. She was unhappy with the allocated social worker and the assessment process. The Council did not initially respond to this contact as a complaint. It sent its stage one complaint response in November 2021.
Ms X was unhappy with the response and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. The Council appointed an investigating officer (IO) and independent person (IP) in December 2021. The IO and IP corresponded with Ms X and agreed her complaints by January 2022. The stage two report was issued in February 2022. It upheld/ partially upheld five of Ms X’s 17 complaints. It made recommendations.
During its stage two adjudication the Council offered Ms X a financial remedy of £650 in recognition of the distress it caused her.
Ms X remained unhappy with the outcome and asked for her complaint to move to stage three.
The stage three panel was held in May 2022. Ms X provided written comments in relation to the stage two report. She also attended the panel meeting by video link.
The panel upheld/ partially upheld three complaints that were not upheld during stage two. It made additional recommendations.
The Council’s stage three adjudication accepted and agreed the panel’s findings and recommendations. It offered Ms X a further £150 in recognition of the additional fault and injustice the panel found.
Ms X remained unhappy with the final response and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we would generally not reinvestigate the substantive issues simply because the complainant was unhappy with the outcome.
The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless a complainant can point to evidence of serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.
I did not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms X’s complaint through the statutory complaint process. It followed the correct process, and I did not have concerns about the investigation.
The Council already conducted a thorough investigation at stage two and stage three. It upheld some of Ms X’s complaint.
It agreed recommendations and offered a financial remedy which provided a suitable remedy for the injustice to Ms X and are in line with our guidance on remedies. It also agreed to service improvements to reduce the likelihood of repeated fault in the future.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I did not investigate the substantive parts of the complaint. I did not find fault with the statutory complaint investigation, so reinvestigation is not necessary nor warranted.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman