Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not offer an appropriate financial remedy after considering and upholding the majority of his complaints through the statutory children’s complaints process. We consider the findings of the Council’s investigation were fair and appropriate. It identified historic failings, with fault in how Mr X’s complaint was investigated with several delays throughout the process. The Council has already made service improvements. The Council has agreed to our recommendation for a revised financial remedy to recognise Mr X’s avoidable distress caused by the Council’s faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council after he discovered utility bills had been put in his name when it placed him in accommodation in 2013. His placement ended, and in 2018 he discovered he had debts built up in name for years. This was investigated under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and the majority of Mr X’s complaints were upheld.
2. Mr X complains to us that the financial remedy offered by the Council does not sufficiently reflect the injustice caused to him. He says the avoidable faults with the Council has had a significant negative impact on him mentally and financially. Also, delays in the complaints process have added further distress and frustration.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. Mr X’s complaint relates to events from 2013, which he was not aware of until 2018. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints made more than 12 months ago, unless there are good reasons. There have been delays in the complaint process since 2019 which has contributed to the lateness of the complaint coming to us. Therefore, we have exercised discretion to consider this now.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
10. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
11. I asked the Council to contact the accommodation Provider for its comments on the complaint. The Council has said there have been difficulties contacting it and it has not received a response. We have also considered naming the Provider in the statement, but these are historic matters, and the Council has not used their services since 2016.
12. 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

Law and administrative background

Council duties to Looked After Children

13. A Looked After Child is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a council. The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order. The child becomes looked after when the council has accommodated them for a continuous period of longer than 24 hours. (Children Act 1989, section 20)
14. Councils have a general duty when looking after a child to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. This duty underpins all activity by the council in relation to looked after children. This duty has become known as ‘corporate parenting’. In simple terms, ‘corporate parenting’ means the collective responsibility of the council, elected members, employees, and partner agencies, for providing the best possible care and safeguarding for the children who are looked after by the council. (Children Act 1989, section 22 and Applying corporate parenting principles to looked after children and care leavers Statutory Guidance 2018)

Statutory complaints process

15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.

Background

19. I have summarised below an overview of key relevant events. This is not intended to be a detailed account of each communication between the parties or an exhaustive chronology of everything that happened.
20. In 2013, as a looked after child, the Council placed Mr X in a semi-independent property. This was run by a company providing accommodation on its behalf at the time. I shall refer to it as the “Provider”. The placement ended in 2015.
21. In 2018, Mr X later discovered he had debts for thousands of pounds built up in his name from this previous accommodation. These were for gas, electricity, and water bills. Mr X also had a County Court Judgement against him. He contacted the companies to get the debts cancelled and the judgement set aside, but he now had a poor credit rating as matters remained on his record.

What happened

22. At the end of April 2019, Mr X’s advocate, on his behalf, made a formal complaint to the Council. She said he had mental health issues and the situation had caused him significant distress and negative financial impact to his future, through no fault of his own.
23. In June 2019, the Council response said the contract terms and conditions with the Provider at the time had shown it was liable for the payment for all utility costs and bills at the property. The Council said it was not at fault and it could not take responsibility for the actions of the Provider, who had denied it. It recommended he complain to the Provider to take action to the issues he raised. Mr X’s advocate asked for his complaint to move to Stage Two a week later.
24. In July 2019, Mr X had a meeting with the Council about his complaint. A follow up letter with a plan of action was sent to him. Mr X received £350 as a remedy. In August 2019, Mr X’s complaint was accepted at Stage Two.
25. At the end of September, Mr X agreed his statement of complaint. It contained 14 individual concerns, all relating to the key matter of the utility bills being put in his name when he resided in the accommodation and the consequences of this. This included the lack of oversight by the Council and its failure to take swift action since he discovered the issue in 2018.
26. The Independent Officer (“IO”) and Independent Person (“IP”) completed their investigation reports into Mr X’s complaints in January 2020. The IO upheld significant elements of Mr X’s complaint. The IP agreed with the findings.
27. The IO concluded:
• Records showed evidence the Council had been informed of an issue in May 2013, a week after Mr X moved in. Therefore, this should have been investigated at the time. The Council had an opportunity to protect Mr X from the harm this later caused him.
• There was a lack of adequate quality assurance systems in place at the time.
• The Provider had paid the utility bills on Mr X’s behalf while he was living in the property. It continued to leave some bills in Mr X’s name after he left the placement in 2015, that is when the debt started to build up.
• Whilst Mr X felt he had done all the work himself at gathering evidence with little support from the Council, records noted his Personal Advisor and other staff in the Council had tried to help deal with the matters. However, the IO accepted Mr X had felt alone, and progress had been frustratingly slow for him.
• The Stage One investigation was at fault as it took the Provider’s word despite Mr X’s evidence which showed the contrary.
• The Council’s lack of proactive action with Mr X’s complaint had affected his emotional wellbeing when he was already vulnerable with mental health issues.
• The Council said it had requested compensation for him with the Provider and its legal services were involved. Nothing further happened with these without keeping Mr X informed. The Council had later tried to seek compensation for itself from the Provider.
• The follow up action plan after the meeting in July 2019 commented mainly about the Providers responsibility but not a lot about the Council’s responsibility to Mr X. It failed to focus on Mr X’s needs and seek a positive outcome for him. It had not given regard to its own duty towards him as a young vulnerable adult who had been a child in its care. It had not cost the Council money. Mr X was the one affected with his poor credit score, caused by the debt.
28. Later in January 2020, the Council sent their response to the IO and IP reports. They said if it had investigated at the time in 2013, it could have been resolved sooner. This led to the problem becoming more severe than it needed to be. The Council was Mr X’s corporate parent and had a duty of care to him, including keeping him safe from financial harm. Although it was the actions of the Provider, the AO said the Council should be held liable for its own inaction. The AO addressed Mr X’s desired outcomes and made recommendations. These were explored in more detail at the next Stage below.
29. In February 2020, Mr X’s advocate asked to move to Stage Three Independent Panel (“Panel”). The Panel was delayed at many points due to Covid-19. The Council had later offered video meetings. Mr X requested his preference was for an in-person meeting. There were various logistical issues, delays with changing Government advice, and availability of officers. The Panel meeting was held late September 2022.
30. The Panel meeting focused on the remedies Mr X sought as he did not wish to address the not upheld complaints. Their findings were sent early October 2022.
• Mr X proposed the Council pay for a private educational course as a way to help overcome the financial difficulties as a result of the Council’s failings. The Stage Two IO said it was committed to supporting him, but there were better courses and easier routes available which were free. It did not think paying for the course would be the right route to help him achieve his goal. It said it would work with him to find the right course to do this.
• By the time of the Stage Three, the Council had since introduced a scheme (in April 2022) for young people with additional needs with funding of up to £3,000 to support their learning. This was offered to Mr X, even though he was now over the age limit. The Council recognised this was because of the time taken throughout the complaints process. The Panel agreed with this recommendation.
• The Council had offered Mr X the services of a financial advisor to help with his situation. The Panel agreed with this recommendation.
• The Panel recommended Mr X be offered £3,000 to address his injustice. This included covering an additional £800 interest he had paid to get a loan.
31. At the end of October 2022, the Council sent its response to the Panel’s recommendations to Mr X:
• It had identified learning from his complaint to improve contract monitoring processes and introduce more checks with providers.
• It would support Mr X in his complaint against the Provider, being guided by its Legal team and Police.
• As part of the educational scheme offered, if Mr X was unable to identify a suitable course through the Council’s providers, it would contribute £3,000 towards his preferred private course.
• It did not agree with the £3,000 payment recommended by the Panel, it offered Mr X £2,400. It advised it had taken the LGSCO’s Guidance on Remedies (“GOR”) to include payments to cover Mr X’s distress, personal outrage, and time and trouble. The Council said it was necessary for Mr X to meet with a financial advisor to be awarded that amount.
32. In January 2023, Mr X complained to us. He felt the financial remedy offered was not appropriate to the injustice caused to him by the Council. He said he had not accepted the offer of any of the Stage Three recommendations so far.

Analysis

Delay within the complaints process

33. There have been delays with Mr X’s complaint throughout. It spanned three and a half years from his first complaint in April 2019 to the final outcome of the Stage Three Panel in October 2022. This is excessively outside of the legal time limits for the statutory children’s complaint process. This is fault. The Council has already paid Mr X £350 at the end of Stage One for delay.
34. I understand between Covid-19 contributed to delays between Stage Two and Three, which was outside of the Council’s control, and it wanted to act in line with Mr X’s preference for in-person meetings. However, by 2022, most legal restrictions had been lifted and it appeared delays related to room bookings, change of personnel, and officer availability. This does not justify these further delays when progress needed to be expedited. The significant delay in the complaints process is fault, and caused further distress and frustration for Mr X.

Injustice and Remedies

35. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. After reviewing all documents, I am satisfied there does not appear to be obvious flaw in the investigation process that would undermine the conclusions reached. The reports and Panel notes show Mr X’s complaints were appropriately considered.
36. The Stage Two investigation identified a number of faults and failings, both in the how the Council historically responded to Mr X concerns in 2013 and in how it dealt with his complaint from 2018 onwards. The IO said it had shifted the blame onto the Provider and the Council later accepted its approach was wrong. I agree it was fault for the Council to remove itself from taking responsibility for any wrongdoing by the Provider. In any case, we hold councils responsible for actions by those who provide services on their behalf.
37. In my view, the Council’s offer of £3,000 towards Mr X’s education is appropriate. Mr X raised concerns to me about the timing of the Council’s offer to him. He said he was already eligible and entitled to the scheme despite the complaints process, but it had proposed it as an additional remedy. The Council confirmed the scheme in April 2022 was not available at the time of the Stage One and Two investigations. It had considered his initial proposed private course and offered to find a suitable alternative with additional value for him. It said it had been committed in offering appropriate options to Mr X for his educational, training and employment skills. We consider the appropriateness of remedies and I consider the scheme still goes towards an educational goal which Mr X originally requested himself. On balance, the Council could have offered it to him before the Panel in September 2022, but I do not consider this was deliberately untoward. I would expect this offer to still be available to Mr X should he wish to accept it.
38. Where it could, the Council has said it addressed concerns to prevent similar situations in future, learning lessons to ensure it would improve support for young people in its care/leaving care and the need for improvements in how complaints are dealt with. This leaves me to consider an appropriate remedy for the personal injustice Mr X has suffered.
39. We can recommend symbolic payments to acknowledge what could have been avoidable distress, harm or risk and should take into account the complainant’s individual circumstances.
40. The faults identified by the complaints process have had a significant impact on Mr X. At the time when he was in the Provider’s accommodation, he was a vulnerable looked after child with mental health issues. Mr X’s distress was severe over a prolonged period. The Council has recognised it was through his own efforts that he gathered the evidence to cancel the debts, which has had a long term effect on his financial position. Overall, the process has caused him avoidable emotional stress, uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience.
41. The Council offered a lower financial remedy than recommended by the Panel. I questioned why the Council said it was conditional for Mr X to meet with a financial advisor to pay him this. It explained it wanted to provide Mr X with the highest level of support and assistance, which the financial advisor would help with. The primary aim of remedies is to put people back in the position they would have been had it not been for the fault, and providing the services of a financial advisor for Mr X would go towards this. I understand the Council’s intention here, however in my view the wording was not appropriate. This is fault. The financial payment is to recognise his injustice from the Council’s fault and should be paid to him regardless. I am satisfied with the recommendation for the Council to provide the services of a financial advisor as a whole (and expect the offer to still stand), as it was appropriately in Mr X’s interests. However, he should be empowered to make his own choice to accept this separately, should he wish to do so. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed it would remove this as a requirement.
42. I have considered Mr X’s complaint has been investigated thoroughly through three stages with an independent Panel. The Panel proposed £3,000 as a financial remedy (including the £800 interest loan charges). The Council reduced this to £2,400. The Council gave a breakdown of factors it had considered for this, using our previous Guidance on Remedies (“GOR”).
43. An updated GOR has been published since I made my enquiries. This normally recommends a payment for distress of up to £500, although there is scope for it to be higher where circumstances suggest it should. Considering the level of injustice to Mr X, his vulnerability, the additional delays, and the period covered, I consider the higher remedy payment the Panel originally recommended to be appropriate and in line with our latest guidance.
44. Our recommended payments are symbolic, not purely financial. However, if Mr X is seeking financial compensation against the Council, this would need to be pursued through the courts. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice outlined above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing for the faults identified by the Stage Two and Three investigations and its handling of his complaints; and
• Pay Mr X £3,000 as a symbolic payment to recognise the avoidable distress caused by the Council’s faults and for the additional delays in the complaints process. This includes the additional £800 interest on the loan Mr X took out at the time.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. There was fault with the Council causing injustice to M X. The Council has agreed with the recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman