The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to complete the stage two investigation of their complaint about children’s services within 13 weeks and following an earlier complaint to us. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs B complained that Cumberland Council (the Council) failed to keep to its agreement to complete the stage two investigation of their complaint about children’s services within 13 weeks. This has caused Mr and Mrs B continuing distress and frustration.
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B, 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
Statutory children’s complaints 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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
What happened Following a previous complaint from Mrs B, we decided on 16 November 2023 that the Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mr B and Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of children’s services. As a resolution to the complaint, we asked the Council to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £200 and complete a stage two investigation of the complaint without delay.
The Council apologised to Mrs B and paid her the money, but it did not complete the stage two investigation. So, we opened this complaint in February 2024 and asked the Council why it had not done so.
In response to my enquiries on 26 March 2024 the Council said it had been unable to complete the agreed remedy due to a lack of Investigating Officers (IOs) and Independent Persons (IPs). It had now appointed an IO and an IP for Mr and Mrs B’s complaint and agreed a statement of complaint. The IO and IP were working out who to interview.
In terms of its wider complaint-handling it said 15 out of 18 investigations in the last 12 months took longer than 25 working days and 13 of 18 took longer than 65 working days. The Council said it had increased the number of IOs and IPs in January 2024 from 9 to 16 but there had been a delay to the starting dates.
The Council also said it had changed its approach to ensuring engagement with the complainant and IO/IP before case allocation to avoid delay and set up meetings. Senior Management had also allowed outstanding investigations to be dealt with by internal staff with an IP allocated accordingly.
In response to an earlier draft of my decision the Council provided significantly more information about the action taken in respect of the complaint. The Council should have provided me with this information two months ago, in response to my enquiries.
It now says it allocated the complaint to an IO and IP on 2 December 2023 who met with Mr and Mrs B on 12 December 2023. By 3 February 2024 Mr and Mrs B had agreed the statement of complaint. The IO and IP interviewed Council officers during February and March 2024 and sent an update on progress to Mr and Mrs B on 2 March 2024. Mr B then offered to send more information about one of the complaints and the Council accepted this offer on 22 March 2024 he sent the information the following day.
The IO and IP met on 23 April 2024 to discuss the complaint outcomes in the light of the new information and interviewed another Council officer on 26 April 2024. The IO and IP met Mr and Mrs B on 1 May 2024. The Council says the continued deliberation is about one of the complaint outcomes: the IO and IP found no evidence of the matter complained of, but Mr B now realises he was mistaken in his terminology and wants to amend the complaint further to allow the matter to be investigated which would involve an extension.
Analysis The reason for the continuing delay in this complaint investigation is not to do with the allocation of an IO and IP, as this took place within two weeks of our previous decision. Beyond a delay of a month between 23 March and 23 April which is partly explained by annual leave, there has been no significant delay by the IO and IP and it appears that the investigation could have been concluded in line with the recommendation in our previous decision had the issue raise by Mr B not arisen.
The delay has been caused by Mr B questioning one of the complaint outcomes and asking for a new complaint to be investigated. Mr B was involved in the agreement of the statement of complaint and had the opportunity to establish the matters to be investigated at that point. So, the continuing delay is not due to fault by the Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr and Mrs B.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman