The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault for not doing more to identify any potential risks from Mr B’s contact with his family while he was in care. It also accepted fault for a number of other things before our involvement. The Council has agreed to offer Mr B an apology and a symbolic financial remedy, in addition to what it offered him before he complained to us. It will also explain to us how it intends to improve its service.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains about various ways in which he believes the Council failed him while he was in its care as a child.
Mr B believes the Council’s failings have caused him distress, and have led to him having poor mental health, including post-traumatic stress disorder. He wants an apology from the Council, further support and funding for therapy, and compensation.
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) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
The law and guidance Councils must provide accommodation for children who have no-one with parental responsibility for them, have been lost or abandoned, or have no-one who is able to provide them with suitable accommodation or care. I refer to these arrangements as ‘section 20’. (Children Act 1989, section 20(1)) The Council’s procedure, ‘Family time with parents / adults and siblings’ A written risk assessment must be completed before supervised family contact begins. This assessment must take account of anything which could hinder the success of contact, and must state how risk will be minimised.
The assessment must be reviewed at least every six months. Any significant reactions the child has to family contact should be reported to the child's social worker. The contact arrangements should also be reviewed in the child's reviews.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies We do not punish councils in the way a court might. This means we do not award ‘damages’ or ‘compensation’.
Instead, we can ask a council to make a payment to ‘symbolise and acknowledge’ the distress someone suffered because of what it did wrong.
If we decide it is appropriate, we normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. But we can recommend higher payments if we decide the distress was especially severe or prolonged.
What happened The Council’s investigation into Mr B’s complaint Mr B first complained to the Council in 2021. The Council responded under the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure. This involved an independent investigation (stage 2) and a review by an independent panel (stage 3).
Many of Mr B’s complaints were upheld at stage 2. The Council accepted that: Mr B was looked after by the Council under section 20 for ten years, which, as it was voluntary, gave his mother more influence in his care planning than he had himself. However, the Council said there was no evidence it had actually failed to meet his needs during the section 20 period.
It failed to allocate an advisor to Mr B when he was leaving care, so he did not initially receive the guidance they would have offered.
It failed to do ‘life story’ work with Mr B throughout his time in care. This would have helped him understand the reasons for his journey into care.
It cannot provide evidence that it complied with the special guardianship order issued for Mr B, because it does not have the paperwork on file. However, its most recent assessment recommended that it pays for therapy for him.
Mr B took two further complaints to the stage 3 panel, both of which were about the Council allowing him contact with his mother despite – as he saw it – the contact not being safe. The stage 2 investigator had not upheld the complaints.
The panel partially upheld the complaints, saying the stage 2 investigator had not reviewed Mr B’s foster carer’s records, and had not commented on the lack of a family contact risk assessment in Mr B’s own records.
The panel felt that this undermined the investigator’s conclusions. However, the investigator disagreed, and felt she had reviewed enough records to make a decision (although she accepted the lack of a risk assessment in Mr B’s records).
The Council did not accept the panel’s findings. It said the panel had not identified any evidence that the Council had actually failed to protect Mr B.
The Council’s offers to Mr B Although the Council did not accept the panel’s findings, it did offer Mr B: An apology for “any avoidable upset caused to you and for any difficulties which you have experienced whilst raising your complaints”.
Initiation of life story work.
Therapy paid for by the Council.
Remedy payments of £200 (for its failure to complete life story work) and £500 (for the time and trouble he went to pursuing his complaint).
My findings
If a complaint has already been through the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
I have considered the documents from Mr B’s complaint, and I note that: Each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council.
The investigation reports refer to relevant legislation, guidance and case records. These case records support the outcome of the complaint. Although the panel and the stage 2 investigator disagreed about which records needed to be reviewed, this was a matter of professional opinion, and the investigator’s views were not obviously unreasonable.
Although the panel partly disagreed with how the investigator had conducted her investigation, it did not identify any evidence which suggested the Council had failed to protect Mr B during parental contact.
Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said for most of Mr B’s complaint, and I will not reinvestigate it.
There is one exception which I will comment on. This was the Council’s failure to assess the risk potentially arising from Mr B’s contact with his mother. The panel identified this, and the stage 2 investigator confirmed it.
This was not in line with the Council’s own policy, and therefore it was at fault.
Although it is unclear exactly what injustice Mr B is likely to have suffered from the lack of a specific risk assessment – particularly as contact was discussed at his reviews – the Council should offer him a further symbolic remedy to recognise that it could have done more to identify risk.
The Council should also offer a more specific and detailed apology to Mr B, which acknowledges all the individual areas in which it has accepted fault over the course of the complaint investigation (as summarised in this decision statement).
The other offers the Council has made to Mr B for his injustice are in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations. Although he wants compensation, this is not something we can recommend. The Council has offered payments which are within our suggested range and recognise that he suffered distress.
Finally, I have not seen any evidence that the Council has taken steps to improve its service in reaction to the failures identified over the course of Mr B’s complaint. It should now clarify this.
Agreed actions
Within six weeks, the Council will: Write a detailed apology to Mr B which sets out all the failings it has accepted in the management of his case, as summarised in this decision statement.
Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr B to recognise that it could have done more to identify any potential risks from contact with his family during his time in care. This payment will be in addition to the payments the Council has already offered Mr B for other things.
Within two months, the Council will send the Ombudsman an action plan which sets out the ways in which it has ensured, and will ensure, that the mistakes it made on Mr B’s case do not happen to others in future.
The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.
Final decision
The Council was at fault. The agreed actions remedy Mr B’s injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman