Summary: Mr X complained the Council treated him unfairly and discriminated against him while being biased towards his children’s mother. He also complained the Council has failed to investigate all of his concerns and has excluded issues or altered the way his complaints are phrased. The failings in communication and significant delays in the statutory complaints procedure are fault. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council treated him unfairly and discriminated against him while being biased towards his children’s mother. He complains the Council did not listen to his concerns, respond to his correspondence, or keep him updated and attempted to alienate his children against him.
2. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to investigate all of his concerns and has excluded issues or altered the way his complaints are phrased.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints process

6. 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.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 here

11. Mr X’s children C and D were made subject to a Child in Need plan in April 2018 following concerns Mr X raised about his wife. In August 2018 Mrs Y moved out of the family home with the children. Mr X and Mrs Y both made allegations of domestic abuse against the other and Mr X raised concerns Mrs Y was emotionally and physically abusive towards the children.
12. The records say Mrs Y did not initially want Mr X to have contact with the children until they were settled. She then felt unable to communicate or agree this with Mr X without legal representation. As a result Mr X did not see or speak to his children for four months until contact arrangements were agreed through the court. Supervised contact was then arranged as part of a Child and Family assessment. Mr X believes the children should live with him and began private court proceedings.
13. The children were subject to Child in Need plan until January 2021 and the Council completed a further Child and Family assessment in March 2021 and closed the case.
14. In November 2020 Mr X complained about the way the Council managed the case and its bias towards Mrs Y from the outset. He discussed his complaint with an officer who then wrote to Mr X confirming his complaint and setting out six specific issues. Mr X wanted to wanted to add to the complaint and discussed his concerns with another officer, Officer 1. Based on this conversation Officer 1 expanded Mr X’s complaint to 11 specific issues. Officer 1 also advised Mr X that the Council could not consider issues which were more than 12 months old under the complaints procedure. They explained that once Mr X had agreed the complaint document they would liaise with the Council’s legal team regarding any points that would be considered within the court process.
15. Mr X did not agree the complaint document. He contacted the Council again in December 2020 setting out his complaints about specific officers since 2018 in detail and gave 15 examples of where they had been biased towards Mrs Y and had treated him unfairly.
16. Over the following few months there were several emails and telephone calls between Mr X and Officer 1 to attempt to agree the issues the Council could investigate. Mr X did not want his complaint divided or for issues to be removed because they related to events more than 12 months ago. He insisted his complaint be addressed as a whole.
17. In late January 2021 the Council produced a complaint document identifying 13 points of complaint and seven desired actions. It forwarded this to its legal department for advice due to the ongoing legal proceedings. Based on the legal advice it received, the Council wrote to Mr X in March 2021 explaining that a number of the issues should be raised as part of the court proceedings and would not form part of the current complaint.
18. Mr X again objected to his complaint being summarised and the points of complaint being reduced. He asked for confirmation that all of his concerns be investigated. Officer 1 was satisfied they had taken the details Mr X had provided since December 2020 and put them into an appropriate form of wording. They reiterated that rewording complaints into a format that can be reviewed is standard practice and confirmed a number of similar concerns had been included as one item.
19. Officer 1 also confirmed the following issues were a matter for the court and would not form part of the complaint:
• The reports prepared for court were biased and unfair;
• There was no consistency regarding the contact plan;
• Contact time between Mr X and his children was not upheld by the social worker;
• The social worker did not allow Mr X to take his children to the GP, hospital, or other medical appointments;
• A report in July 2019 showed C wanted to spend equal time between parents over the summer holidays, but this was not complied with; and
• C’s wish to spend more time with Mr X was not taken into account in contact arrangements.
20. Mr X remained unhappy that parts of his complaint would not be investigated but agreed to discuss this further with the officer assigned to investigate his complaint. A senior officer met with Mr X and also discussed his complaint over the telephone. They then wrote to him with their response on 21 April 2021, responding to seven heads of complaint in turn. They partially upheld one complaint, found another was not proven and did not uphold the remaining complaints.
21. As Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response he asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The Council appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IIO) and Independent Person (IP) in May 2021 and they met with Mr X to discuss his complaints. The IIO prepared a draft statement of complaint in June 2021 which they sent to the Council, who took further legal advice on what could be considered as the private court proceedings were ongoing. Mr X subsequently informed the Council he wanted to include additional heads of complaint.
22. Over the following months Mr X had further discussions with the IIO and IP and there were several amendments to the statement of complaint. The records show Mr X was concerned that unless all his examples were included, as he had worded them, the investigation would be unable to find in his favour. Mr X agreed the statement of complaint on 5 December 2021. This included an introduction, background to the complaint and set out the following complaints:

Complaint 1

Mr X complains the Council failed to appropriately respond to his repeated concerns regarding the care of his children, for example;

• The concerns he raised regarding his son, about C being upset when returning to his mother’s (September 2020).
• The concerns he raised regarding the text messages he received from Mrs Y, for example in October 2020 and December 2020 regarding contact.
• Failing to respond to concerns he raised about the conditions his children were living in at the women's refuge with Mrs Y (August 2018 - February 2020)

Complaint 2

Mr X complains the Council show biased practice by treating Mrs Y more favourably, which impacts on the wellbeing of his children, for example;

• Regarding how he was responded to when requesting his children's missing clothes were returned during a meeting on 18 December 2019.
• Being treated differently than Mrs Y when arriving late for a core group on 06 March 2020.
• Not being informed meetings would be split, and then being prevented from attending the meeting (February or March 2020)
• Being advised by a social worker on 22 July 2020 that his contact time with his children would be reduced if he did not allow his daughter more time to phone her mother.

Complaint 3

Mr X states that the social worker changed an agreement he had signed with the family support worker after he had signed it on 17 January 2020.

Complaint 4

Mr X complains the Council have failed to keep him informed about decisions regarding his children including:

• providing him with relevant documents (report produced by the school counsellor July 2019 and CIN meeting minutes since June 2019) relating to his children.
• Not keeping him up to date regarding decisions about contact arrangements with his children made in December 2020.

Complaint 5

Mr X complains that a new social worker should have been allocated to the children as soon as he raised his complaint.

Complaint 6

Mr X complains Children’s Social Care have behaved in a racist manner towards him and his children by:

• Stating that his children should spend Christmas with Mrs Y because in his view the social worker does not believe he would let them celebrate Christmas
• Questioning his children about their religion and telling Mr X to let the children make their own mind up about their religion
10. Each complaint included a further explanation of Mr X’s concerns and most also included statements in Mr X’s own words that he had asked to be kept in.
11. The IIO shared a draft report with the Council and Mr X in March 2022 and had a meeting with Mr X in early April 2022 to discuss the report. They then issued the final report on 6 April 2022.
12. The stage two investigation upheld the first part of complaint 1 and partially upheld the first part of complaint 4. It was unable to prove or disprove complaint 3 and did not uphold the remaining heads of complaint. It recommended the Council:
• Apologise to Mr X for the failings it had found;
• Remind staff of the policy in respect of recording contact with parents and ensure case records are kept up to date;
• Liaise with Mr X and supply copies of reports and meeting minutes in respect of his children that have not previously been provided; and
• In cases where a person’s first language is not English and a translator has been declined to offer to provide parents with documents in their first language explaining key processes.
13. The Council considered the stage two report and wrote to Mr X in late April 2022. It apologised for the elements of Mr X’s complaints that had been upheld and where the service he had received was not as good as it should have been. The Council also confirmed it disagreed with the IIO’s decision they were unable to prove or disprove complaint 3. Instead the Council partially upheld this complaint as the signed agreement and referral were not on Mr X’s children’s records as they should be.
14. Mr X remained dissatisfied. He discussed his complaint with a senior officer and in June 2022 asked for his complaint to be considered by the stage three panel. The Council commissioned a panel and suggested dates for the meeting in October 2022. Mr X considered such a delay was unacceptable as there had already been significant delays since he first raised his complaint in November 2020. He asked for it to be brought forward.
15. The stage three panel meeting was subsequently arranged for 24 August 2022. Mr X attended the virtual panel meeting and had the opportunity to present his views and explain why he felt each of his complaints should be upheld. The panel considered the first part of complaint 4 should be upheld rather than partially upheld and agreed with the Council that complaint 3 should be partially upheld. It considered the stage two findings of not upheld for the remaining complaints should remain.
16. The panel made the following recommendations:
1. that social workers are reminded that all working agreements should be uploaded to and retained on relevant case files at the time of completion.
2. that the documents Mr X has requested be provided to him within 20 working days of the Council’s response being sent.
3. that as part of any induction sessions, social workers are reminded of the importance of sharing minutes, and/or documents recording significant events, with those holding parental responsibility, in a timely manner.
4. that social workers and operational managers are reminded, that before a case holding worker leaves the employment of the Council, all outstanding records and transfer summaries should be completed and uploaded to relevant case files.
5. that social workers should be reminded where specific concerns have been raised by parents/others with parental responsibility and actioned by social workers, the parent/other with parental responsibility should receive a timely and appropriate response.
6. that the local authority takes account of the changed findings and identified learning from this complaint, to consider whether it is appropriate to offer remedy within the framework guidance and direction from the LGSCO.
17. Following the panel meeting the Council wrote to Mr X confirming it accepted the panel’s findings. It apologised for the failings in service and set out the action taken/ it would take in relation to the panel’s recommendations. The Council confirmed it would provide the information Mr X had requested with ten working days and offered to pay him X £300 in recognition of the failure to provide him with reports and minutes in a timely manner.
18. Mr X does not consider his complaint has been properly investigated and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. He maintains the Council has discriminated against him and was biased towards Mrs Y. He feels social workers were disrespectful and judged him, and treated him differently to Mrs Y.
19. Mr X says the way the Council wanted him to raise his complaint was not as he wanted. He complains the Council would not accept his wording and did not include all of his issues. Mr X says the Council removed his complaints relating to his own and his children’s human rights.
20. Mr X says he raised a concern at the stage three panel meeting that the stage two investigation did not reflect a complaint he had made about racism. He is unhappy the panel would not consider this issue and that his comments on this issue are not recorded in the minutes of the panel meeting. Mr X also says that some information had been deliberately omitted from sections of the stage two report and that entries did not show what he had asked at the beginning of the stage two process. He would like to see the recordings of the panel meeting
21. In response to my enquiries the Council has confirmed the virtual meetings were not recorded. It acknowledges it took a long time to agree the statements of complaint with Mr X both at stage one and stage two. It was concerned to ensure the complaints were sufficiently specific and could be answered. The Council is satisfied there was significant work with Mr X to ensure the complaints he wished to raise were included, with the exception of any exclusions. It reiterates that some complaints could not be accepted due to either time limitations or because they related to ongoing court proceedings.
22. The Council notes Mr X agreed the final version of the statement of complaint at stage two. He raised concerns at the stage three panel that the wording had changed but had not previously raised this.
23. Mr X has responded to the draft decision and reiterated his concerns that his complaint was not investigated impartially or fairly. He believes that the IIO and stage three panel acted to protect the Council and cover up its failings by not recording meetings and not investigating all of his complaints. In particular he asserts the panel refused to acknowledge his complaint about failure to protect his children’s human rights while they were living with Mrs Y at the refuge.

Analysis

37. As set out above, where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
38. There were significant delays at each stage of the investigation process, which took over a year and a half to complete. These delays were mainly due to the difficulties in agreeing Mr X’s statement of complaint. Mr X wanted to express his complaints in a particular way and did not want his wording to be changed or for elements of his complaint to be removed. While the Council wanted to ensure Mr X’s concerns were framed in a way that could be investigated and answered. It also repeatedly explained that certain elements could not be considered under the complaints process due to their age or the ongoing court proceedings.
39. I recognise that these differing standpoints were not easy to reconcile, but we expect Councils to comply with statutory timeframes and such significant delays are not acceptable and amount to fault. Where the council is confident it understands what the complaint is, we would expect it to tell the complainant it intends to continue with the investigation. It should offer the complainant a final chance to agree the details of the complaint to be investigated but it should be proactive in progressing the complaint.
40. Notwithstanding this delay, however, there is no evidence of fault in the way Mr X’s complaint was investigated or the decisions reached. The stage two report is detailed and reasoned. Mr X has complained about the way the heads of complaint are phrased, but he agreed to the final version of the statement of complaint. This included statements about the individual complaints in Mr X’s own words.
41. Although Mr X raised concerns at the stage three panel about the wording of his complaint and issues being excluded, there is no evidence he had asked for the final version of statement of complaint to be amended again. Or that he raised these concerns when discussing the draft report with the IIO and IP before the final report was produced.
42. Mr X’s statement of complaint does not expressly refer to his children’s human rights, but part 3 of complaint 1 does set out Mr X’s concerns about the conditions at the refuge. This issue was considered in detail in the stage two investigation report and discussed during the stage three panel hearing.
43. The stage three panel endorsed most of the stage two decisions but fully, rather than partially, upheld the first part of complaint 4 and agreed with the Council that complaint 3 should be partially upheld. Mr X attended the meeting and was able to make detailed submissions to the stage three panel. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its findings.
44. The Council has apologised for the failings in its service and has also offered to pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the failure to provide him with reports and minutes in a timely manner. This is an appropriate response.
45. However I also consider the Council should apologise and make a symbolic financial payment in respect of distress and frustration caused by the length of time taken to complete the complaints process.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 in recognition of the distress and frustration caused by the significant delays in the statutory complaints process.
47. The Council has also agreed to pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the distress and frustration caused by the failure to provide him with reports and minutes in a timely manner.
48. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The failings in communication and significant delays in the statutory complaints process are fault. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman