Summary: Ms B complained about the delay in dealing with her complaint about children’s services. We found the Council delayed in completing the process and has not yet sent Ms B the reports in an accessible format. We have asked the Council to pay her £150 and send her the reports so she can access them.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that the London Borough of Haringey (the Council) delayed excessively in dealing with her complaint at stage two of the statutory children's complaints procedure. This has caused her frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, and the Council. I have also considered the guidance on the statutory children’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Are we getting the best from children’s social care complaints?’ published in March 2015 and guide for practitioners about the statutory complaints procedure published in March 2021. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share the final decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedure

6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage two of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
7. Stage one should be completed in a maximum of 20 working days, stage two in 65 working days and stage three within approximately 50 working days, in total 27 weeks.
8. During the COVID-19 pandemic the timescale for completing stage three was relaxed to allow councils to comply with the existing timeframes as soon as is reasonably practicable.

What happened

9. Ms B previously complained to the Ombudsman about the way the Council dealt with her complaint about children’s services. As a result of the complaint the Council agreed to consider the complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
10. In December 2020 the Council started the stage two process, appointing an investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP). The IO contacted Ms B in early January 2021 to arrange a meeting by video call. Ms B said she had a poor internet connection, wanted a face to face meeting and needed an interpreter.
11. After further correspondence the IO arranged a meeting by video call for 2 February 2021. The IO also sent Ms B a draft statement of complaint based on the information the Council had forwarded regarding the complaint.
12. On 30 January 2021 Ms B sent a document listing 89 points of complaint which the IO had not previously seen. The IO cancelled the proposed meeting and said she would go back to the Council regarding the new issues. Ms B was unhappy and said the Council was aware of all these issues.
13. On 8 February 2021 the Council said it was pausing the stage two process to allow the Council to respond to some of the new points which it said Ms B had included since its original complaint response the previous year.
14. Ms B was very dissatisfied with this proposal.
15. On 4 March 2021 the Council changed its mind and the stage two process restarted. The IO continued to try and arrange a meeting with Ms B, sending a draft complaint statement and planning a video call on 30 March 2021. On 29 March 2021 Ms B sent further points of complaints. So, the IO cancelled the meeting again in order to incorporate the new points in the statement of complaint.
16. In April 2021 the Council asked the IO to add further complaints about the safeguarding process which had just completed a separate procedure. Ms B was not happy about all the complaints being combined in one investigation and the IO was not happy that Ms B had not given her consent for this.
17. The consent issue was resolved in June 2021 and the IO produced the final statement of complaint agreed with Ms B on 9 July 2021. It contained 109 points of complaint and 34 desired outcomes. The IO said, given the complexity of the complaint, she expected the investigation would take the full 65 working days to 11 October 2021. She had informed Ms B of this likelihood.
18. The IO sent her report to the Council on 3 November 2021 The IP sent their report on 9 November 2021. The Council completed its letter of adjudication on 29 December 2021. It did not send the reports or the letter to Ms B until 28 February 2022. The two reports were password-protected and Mrs B has not received the correct passwords to open them. She wishes to proceed to stage three of the procedure but has not received an acknowledgement from the Council.
19. Ms B complained again to the Ombudsman in January 2022.

Analysis

20. Apart from the period of a few weeks when the Council was considering whether to pause stage two of the investigation, the delay in producing the statement of complaint was not due to fault by the Council. The time taken was due to accommodating Ms B’s needs and understanding the additional points of complaint.
21. I understand the complaint was very complex and I do not think the IO was at fault in taking three extra weeks to complete her report. However, the Council did not send the reports or its adjudication letter to Ms B until 28 February 2022, over four months after it should have done. This was fault which caused Ms B frustration and distress.
22. The injustice has been exacerbated by the continuing failure to provide Ms B with the means to open the reports or acknowledge her request to escalate the matter to stage three.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B, I recommended the Council (within one month of the date of my final decision):
• pays Ms B £150;
• sends her the stage two reports from the IO and IP, either in an unprotected format or with passwords so she can open them; and
• acknowledges her stage three review request and progresses this in accordance with the procedure.
24. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Ms B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman