The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the post adoption support the Council provided her and her family. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Mrs X’s complaints or the recommendations it made. However, it failed to address the injustice caused to Mrs X’s children by the identified faults. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £600 to remedy this injustice and provide evidence it has completed the recommendations.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the post adoption support the Council provided her and her family from 2016.
Mrs X states the Council has not supported them adequately and as a result the children have not received the therapy they need, affecting their wellbeing. This has also had an impact on Mrs X’s ability to care for them which has caused her frustration and distress.
What I have investigated I have not investigated all of Mrs X’s complaints because some of them are too old. I explain why in paragraphs 24 to 26 of this decision statement.
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) 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) 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 spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
I considered our guidance on remedies manual.
I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.
What I found
Children’s statutory complaints procedure Section 26(3) of the Children Act (1989) says all functions of the Council under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
Complaint investigations under the statutory procedure consist of three stages: Stage 1: Staff within the service area complained about try to resolve the complaint. This stage should take up to 10 days (or 20 days for complex cases).
Stage 2: An Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO writes a report which includes details of findings, conclusions and outcomes against each point of complaint (ie “upheld” or “not upheld”) and any recommendations to remedy injustice to the complainant. This stage should take 25 days (or 65 days for complex cases).
Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as adjudicating officer. They will consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The adjudicating officer should write to the complainant with their decision on each complaint.
Stage 3: A review panel considers the complaint. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a brief summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 19(2)). It should take no longer than 35 days for the panel to issue its report.
The council must send its response to the panel’s recommendations to the complainant within 15 days of receiving the panel’s report. The response should set out how the council will respond to the recommendations and what action it will take. If the council deviates from the panel’s recommendations it should explain its reasoning in the response.
Unless there is evidence of fault in the investigation process, the Ombudsman will not usually re-investigate a complaint which has been through the full procedure. This is because a properly conducted investigation is independent and robust.
Background of key events Mrs X complained about the service provided by the Council’s post adoption service in relation to two children she and Mr X adopted several years previously. Both children had been through trauma and/or had physical conditions which could sometimes make life more difficult for them.
The Council’s statutory complaints process Mrs X first complained to the Council in May 2021. The Council investigated and provided its response later that month.
Mrs X responded mid-June and requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure.
The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) and they met with Mrs X mid-August to discuss her complaint. The Council made attempts to resolve her issues, but these were unsuccessful and so on 9 September, the IO sent a draft statement of complaint to Mrs X. She made amendments and approved the final version on 28 September.
Between October and December, the IO interviewed relevant parties and carried out a file inspection. They issued their report in January 2022.
Mrs X remained unhappy and in February 2022, she asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 3.
The stage 3 review panel met in March and issued its report in later that month. The Council issued its response to the panel report at the end of April.
The complaints
The Council considered 13 complaints at stages 2 and 3 of the statutory procedure. The first two complaints related to specific events from 2016 and 2017.
The law says 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. I do not propose to consider these at this stage because Mrs X has not provided any good reason why she did not complain to us earlier and they happened too long ago to be able to achieve anything meaningful at this stage.
I have however, looked at how the Council considered the other complaints, even though some started in 2017. This is because these remained ongoing at the time of the investigation and therefore the older events had a bearing on more recent ones.
Stage 2 investigation Of the 11 complaints I am considering, these related to the therapies and assessments provided (or not provided) to the children, the lack of contact from the post adoption support team (PAS) and the time it took the Council to make referrals to PAS for support.
The IO upheld three complaints, partially upheld one complaint and did not uphold the other seven as follows. These decisions are explained in more detail below (the original numbering in the IO’s report has been retained for ease of reference for the parties involved).
Complaints not upheld Complaint 3: PAS failed to provide the children with access to appropriate therapies. The IO found PAS provided access to what the Team considered to be appropriate therapies, although they had not been completed because Mrs X disagreed with the Council that they were appropriate.
Complaint 5: PAS failed to involve Mrs X in discussions about the therapies it had chosen and whether they would meet the children’s needs. The IO considered there was sufficient proof Mrs X had been involved in discussions and did not uphold the complaint.
Complaint 6: PAS failed to give proper consideration to music therapy and/or obtaining funding for this. The IO concluded PAS would have given consideration to music therapy but decided other interventions would be more appropriate, planned or underway at the time.
Complaint 7: Failure to implement a recommendation that both children have a full psychological assessment to assess their cognitive function and checks for ASD and ADHD. The IO found PAS implemented the recommendations where it was able to, although one of the therapies was unsuccessful. There were delays in involving private psychotherapists, but these were outside PAS’s control.
Complaint 9: Failure to arrange an updated sensory assessment after the last ones three years ago. The IO accepted PAS did not arrange updated sensory assessments because despite Mrs X’s opinion, it considered the children did not need one.
Complaint 11: Only one school sensory training session was held and since then the children have moved school. The IO found PAS was not at fault but considered the family could have been better updated.
Complaint 12: Lack of contact from PAS between August 2020 and June 2021. The IO found there was contact with the family.
Complaints upheld Complaint 8: PAS failed to provide timescales for psychological assessments for other family members after one child had received their assessment. The IO found there was a significant delay in providing work recommended by Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) which, if it had started, would have prevented the need for further assessments.
Complaint 10: PAS failed to arrange the sensory support recommended in 2019 by an Adoption and Fostering Agency (AFA) which provides therapeutic support for children and again in 2020 by CAMHS. The IO found there was a delay in making arrangements even though these had now been overtaken by the appointment of CAMHS as the lead service.
Complaint 13: Delays in applying to the adoption support fund. The IO concluded they could not come to a decision on all the applications Mrs X had made, but there had been a delay in the most recent.
Complaints partially upheld Complaint 4: PAS failed to ensure Mr and Mrs X were kept updated by the therapists. The IO found Mrs X had been updated on one therapy but not all of them. They also found there were no clear processes in place for information given to PAS to be passed onto the parents.
Outcomes and recommendations The IO concluded Mrs X and PAS often had conflicting views of what was best for the children. The IO was not qualified to make a determination between the differing views and instead set out in detail in their report what they were. The IO also looked in detail at the outcomes Mrs X wanted, which were mainly around specific therapies and assessments for the children and detailed in their report the communications they had with the relevant professionals to explore these outcomes.
The IO made a number of recommendations in relation to their findings. The main ones were: that the recommendations made in the multi-agency therapeutic review which took place as a result of the stage 1 complaint investigation were implemented and monitored; another section of the Council to PAS would offer the family the support identified in their plan; providing improved information for parents about the role of PAS; The Council adjudication officer wrote to Mrs X. They stated they agreed with the IO’s findings apart from complaints 10 and 13.
The officer changed complaint 10 from upheld to partially upheld on the basis Mrs X was offered support in a timely manner but turned it down because she wanted a different type of therapy. The officer said this was unavailable at the time because the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic did not allow face-to-face meetings and Mrs X did not feel virtual meetings would work.
The officer also changed complaint 13 from upheld to partially upheld. This was because there was no evidence to come to a finding on earlier applications to the adoption support fund and with the example given of a later application, some of the delay was down to the actions of Mrs X.
The adjudication officer also provided an update on the recommendations made by the IO.
Stage 3 review Mrs X remained unhappy and asked for her complaints to be reviewed at stage 3.
The review panel made the following changes to the complaint findings: Complaint 4: PAS failed to ensure Mr and Mrs X were kept updated by the therapists. The panel changed this from partially upheld to upheld on the basis there appeared to be no system of ensuring parents were kept updated and when Mrs X was sent a report, she could not open it. The IO and IP agreed with this change of finding.
Complaint 6: PAS failed to give proper consideration to music therapy and/or obtaining funding for this. The panel changed this from not upheld to upheld on the basis PAS failed to provide Mrs X with an explanation of why it did not consider music therapy to be appropriate.
Complaint 9: Failure to arrange an updated sensory assessment after the last ones three years ago. The panel changed the finding from not upheld to upheld on the basis it was reasonable to believe the children’s sensory needs had changed over three years and their parents and teachers needed up to date knowledge of their current needs.
Complaint 10: PAS failed to arrange the sensory support recommended in 2019 by an Adoption and Fostering Agency and again in 2020 by CAMHS. The IO upheld this complaint, but the adjudicating officer did not uphold it. After discussion, when the IO explained they had upheld this because there had been no efforts by PAS to ensure the support was in place, the adjudicating officer agreed to change their finding to upheld.
Complaint 11: Only one school sensory training session was held and since the children had moved school. The IO did not uphold this complaint. The panel changed the finding to upheld on the basis it was essential that anyone involved in the children’s care or education needed to have a knowledge of their current needs and how best to meet them.
Complaint 13: Delays in applying to the adoption support fund. The IO upheld this and the adjudicating officer partially upheld it. After discussion the adjudicating officer agreed to change their finding to upheld on the basis that on the balance of probabilities there had likely been some delays. The panel came to no finding on this because of insufficient evidence.
The panel received an update on the recommendations from the stage 2 investigation. This included the fact that a plan with timescales had been drawn up for the implementation of the multi-agency therapeutic review recommendations although this had not been shared with Mrs X.
The panel made further recommendations including that the Council: apologise to Mrs X for the failures identified by the complaints process.
consider our guidance on remedies in respect of the unnecessary distress and anxiety Mrs X had experienced.
Ensure future staff and development programmes include the need to listen to parents and carers when making decisions about therapeutic support for children.
Following the panel meeting, the Council wrote to Mrs X. It agreed with the findings of the review panel and the recommendations. It went on to apologise for the impact on the family in relation to the complaints that had been upheld and also specified what it would do to put things right. The Council offered Mrs X £250 in acknowledgement of the distress she had experienced and the delay in the complaints process.
Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
Consideration of Mrs X’s complaints It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following: was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?
did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?
has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
The stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel review were properly conducted. The IO reviewed the appropriate information, spoke to Mrs X and carried out interviews with the relevant officers. Their findings were evidence based and the recommendations appropriate. The adjudication officer commented on and amended some of the findings, again providing reasons why. The IO and adjudication officer attended the Stage 3 review panel with Mrs X and changes were made again to the findings. All this demonstrates the Council adopted a flexible and open approach to investigating Mrs X’s complaints.
The recommendations that were made during the complaint process were appropriate. The Council should provide us with proof it has carried these out.
However, the Council failed to consider or remedy the injustice caused to the two children in relation to missed or delayed therapies and assessments. These were in relation to complaints 9, 10, 11. As a result I have made a recommendation to address this.
Time taken to complete the complaints process The Council has already stated it took too long to complete the complaints process. It has apologised and offered Mrs X £250 for her distress and the time and trouble this caused her. This is appropriate to remedy the injustice these delays caused her.
Agreed actions
Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council agreed to: pay Mrs X £600, to acknowledge the impact caused to the children by the faults identified in relation to missed or delayed provision of support and assessments (complaints 9, 10 and 11). This money should be used as Mrs X thinks best for the benefit of the children; and provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has carried out the recommendations made at stages 2 and 3 of the complaints procedures.
Final decision
The Council acted with fault which led to injustice. It has agreed to my recommendations, and so I have completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not looked at all of Mrs X’s complaints because some of them were too old and I have no good reason to exercise my discretion to look at them now. I provide reasons for this decision in paragraphs 24 to 26.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman