The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not follow the statutory children’s complaint process when it considered her complaint about post-adoption support. Mrs X said it did not meet the timescales and failed to consider her representations at the stage three panel meeting. Mrs X further complains the Council unfairly treated her as a persistent complainer. The Council was at fault as there was delay completing the statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 to recognise the frustration this caused.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council did not follow the statutory children’s complaint process when it considered her complaint about post-adoption support. Mrs X said it did not meet the timescales and failed to consider her representations at the stage three panel meeting. Mrs X further complained the Council unfairly treated her as a persistent complainer. Mrs X states this has caused her distress and has prevented her children from receiving the support they need.
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Mrs X complaint about how the Council followed the statutory complaint procedure. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council considered if Mrs X was a persistent complainer, this is because the Ombudsman has already considered this separately in a previous decision.
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) Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(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) 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 read the documents provided by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
I considered the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
Mrs 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
Statutory 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.
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.
Panel papers should be sent to all panellists and other attendees as soon as they are agreed by the Chair and no later than 10 days before the panel meeting. After that deadline it is at the discretion of the panel whether to consider any further papers or not.
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 Mrs X has two adopted children. In 2020 Mrs X approached the Council about post-adoption support for her children.
Mrs X complained to the Council about the post-adoption support in February 2021.
The Council considered the complaint through the corporate complaint procedure at stage one and two. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response Mrs X complained to us.
We recommended the Council considered Mrs X’s complaint about post-adoption support through the statutory children’s complaint procedure in September 2021.
The Council began an investigation in September 2021. The Investigation was completed by an investigating officer (IO) and was overseen by an independent person (IP). The IO and IP met with Mrs X and recorded her complaint. They shared this with Mrs X who made amendments. Mrs X’s complaint was split into five main points with 23 points of complaint overall. The main points of complaint were that the Council: did not follow the post-adoption assessment process; did not listen to Mrs X’s comments and concerns about the assessment; used historical information from an external agency to write the assessment, and did not reference the source; did not consider data protection (GDPR) complaints correctly; and did not discuss a dedicated emotional health team within the post-adoption service with the family.
The IO considered all the available documentary evidence, interviewed key Council staff members and Mrs X. The IO completed the investigation in December 2021. It upheld that: the Council did not give Mrs X an opportunity to see or comment on the post-adoption support assessment before it was finalised, and she did not agree the outcomes of the assessment; the Council included the family’s comments twice on a revised assessment which made the document too long; and the Council incorrectly used the corporate complaints procedure initially instead of the statutory complaint procedure.
The investigation partially upheld that: the assessment author could have been more specific in referencing sources; and The social worker did not discuss a dedicated emotional health team with Mrs X.
The investigation did not uphold the other 18 elements of Mrs X’s complaint. It made recommendations for the Council to ensure it clearly referenced assessments and shared them with families before it finalised them.
The Council wrote an adjudication letter to Mrs X in January 2022. It stated it agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. It outlined it had discussed the service improvement recommendations with the Practice Manager for the Adoption Support Team who had implemented the improvements. It also told Mrs X of her right to an independent review panel at stage three.
Mrs X requested a stage three review panel in mid-January 2022. Between mid-January and the end of March 2022 the Council attempted to arrange the stage three review panel. This was frustrated due to some of the people involved being on leave, and some panel members being unwell. The Council kept Mrs X informed during that time.
The Council emailed Mrs X on 25 March 2022 and said it would hold the review panel on 27 April 2022. Mrs X confirmed the date and asked when she needed to provide her submission to the panel for consideration. The Council asked Mrs X to provide it by 8 April 2022 so it could send it to the panel in advance.
Mrs X asked for an extension until the 22 April, which the Council agreed. Mrs X sent the submission to the Council on 25 April 2022. The Council states it sent it to the panel members the same day for their consideration. It states it discussed the document with the panel Chair on the phone who felt it was very late to consider it.
The stage three independent review panel was held on 27 April 2022 and consisted of three independent people. The record of the meeting included a summary of Mrs X’s complaints about the stage 2 report, including: some statements in the report were factually incorrect; the IO did not have all the information to consider; and the IO did not consider her evidence that was contradictory to the Council’s.
The record noted the panel had given Mrs X the appropriate opportunity to have her views heard. It recorded Mrs X’s representations, the Council’s response and that of the investigating officer. It found the investigation had been thorough and conducted in line with the guidance.
Mrs X states that none of the panel members had seen the document she submitted and she emailed it to them all while they were in the panel meeting.
The review panel upheld the stage two findings. It stated the second partially upheld referenced at paragraph 23 should be changed to not upheld as the dedicated emotional health team did not exist. The panel confirmed the Council had completed the recommendations from stage two, and it made some further recommendations. It included the Council should: apologise to Mrs X for the distress caused and outline the practice improvements as a result of the complaint; share the final assessment with Mrs X with all appropriate amendments; and ensure it contacted Mrs X to discuss ongoing support.
The Council sent the stage three panel report to Mrs X on 5 May 2022 and wrote to her on 23 May 2022. It said it agreed with the stage three panel findings. It responded to the panel’s recommendations and apologised to Mrs X for the distress caused. It stated it would share the amended final assessment with Mrs X by 31 May 2022 and had already made contact to discuss ongoing support.
Mrs X confirmed to me she had received the apology and further contact from the Council as outlined in paragraph 32.
My findings
The Council's stage two investigation was thorough, robust and well-evidenced. The recommendations logically followed on from its findings. The stage two investigation found the Council at fault in how it managed some of Mrs X’s case.
The role of the stage three panel is not to reinvestigate the complaint but to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation.
Mrs X provided her comments for the stage three panel two days before the panel hearing. As this was after the ten-day deadline it was at the panel’s discretion whether to consider the document. The stage three panel report references Mrs X’s representations as outlined in her submission and was discussed during the panel meeting. The stage three panel considered Mrs X’s representations and those of the Council and the IO in reaching its conclusions. There was no fault in how the Council carried out the complaint investigation, as a result I have no reason to question its findings.
The timelines for considering a complaint through the statutory complaint process are set in the statutory guidance. The Council took 15 days longer than the guidance states to complete the stage two investigation. That was fault. The Council took 35 days longer than the guidance states to hold the panel. The delay arranging the panel was due to circumstance beyond the Council’s control and it kept in contact with Mrs X during that time. However, that was service failure by the Council. The Council took 9 days longer than the 10 days the guidance allows to provide its final response at stage three. That was fault. The overall delay of 59 days caused Mrs X frustration.
Agreed action
Within one month the Council agreed to: write to Mrs X and apologise for the frustration caused to her by the 59 days of delay in the statutory complaints procedure, it will pay her £100 to recognise the same; and remind staff members who consider statutory complaints procedure of the timescales set out in the statutory guidance, specifically in relation to providing a final response.
The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman