Ombudsman raps council for excessive delays in dealing with complaint by former looked-after child about children’s services

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has criticised City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council for excessive delays in completing two stages of the statutory complaints procedure.

The complainant, Mr B, had complained about Bradford’s failures towards him as a ‘looked after child’, which he said caused him significant harm and distress over a prolonged period.

Mr B said the delay in the complaints process had exacerbated the distress and caused him significant frustration and time and trouble. He wanted an appropriate financial remedy to recognise the harm and distress he was caused along with meaningful service improvements to ensure other people did not experience the same problems.

The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. Stage one is local resolution. 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. If a complainant is again unhappy, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel.

Mr B was a looked after child who spent time in local authority residential care. The Ombudsman report said he was very vulnerable and at risk of abuse. He had suffered trauma and the ongoing effects of this impacted on his mental health leading to self-harm and suicide attempts.

In early 2020 he made a formal complaint to Bradford about the actions of children’s services. The council agreed the terms of reference of the complaint and responded within a month. The council did not uphold his complaint at this point.

In April 2020 the complainant accordingly escalated his complaint to stage two of the process and Bradford agreed to do this (after initially refusing to do so due to court proceedings) in late June.

Mr B complained about the council’s handling of the complaint and the time it was taking to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then asked the council to complete the statutory process.

Due to ill health and other circumstances, the process was delayed by multiple Investigating Officers (IOs) leaving the case. This delay continued until March 2021 when Bradford provided a stage two response to the new elements of the complaint but did not complete the process. The council suspended the investigation to pursue mediation. Mr B wanted to complete the complaints process, so the council agreed to fund an external IO.

Mr B went to the Ombudsman once more, in July 2021, and the council agreed to complete the stage two investigation within two months. It also agreed to pay Mr B £300 for the delay. The council indicated it might have difficulty in keeping to this timeframe, but the new IO considered the deadline should be achievable.

Later that year, the council completed the investigation. Of the 94 heads of complaint, 50 were fully upheld, 12 were partially upheld, 15 were not upheld, 11 were inconclusive and in the remaining six, there was no finding.

They made 35 recommendations under nine separate headings including:

• A sincere apology for all the upheld complaints, an acknowledgement of the practices that failed Mr B and the impact this has had on his health and wellbeing.
• An open and transparent action plan with clear timescales and to ensure that Mr B is involved in the process of change where possible.
• Consideration of Mr B’s request for reimbursements and recompense for the risk, harm and emotional distress he experienced.
• A review of Mr B’s care package and psychological needs, followed by appropriate support from the private sector if necessary.
• Completion of outstanding investigations into Mr B’s complaints about individual care homes/staff.
• Professional conduct considerations in terms of current and former social work staff.
• A review of how the council is currently supporting vulnerable people and consideration of introducing Trauma-Informed Practice in future cases.
• A review of its working relationship with the police to ensure young people are safeguarded.
• A review of social work practice and ensuring that there is greater clarity about the rationale behind decision-making.
• Improvements to complaint-handling, including no longer asking busy operational mangers at the council to carry out stage two investigations, reviewing the resourcing of the service and reviewing its procedures in line with our guidance.

In its adjudication letter, sent in November 2022, Bradford agreed with the findings on Mr B's individual complaints but did not commit to any recommendations beyond meeting in late 2022 to resolve outstanding issues.

A meeting was subsequently arranged for February 2023 to complete the action plan, but this was cancelled. Mr B complained again to the Ombudsman, and the council agreed to investigate the complaint.

Bradford sent Mr B the completed action plan in late March with a letter of apology offering £3,000. Mr B requested £5,000 and full implementation of the plan, and the council agreed to pay the £5,000. Mr B was satisfied with the resolution and did not wish to proceed to stage three of the complaints process.

The Ombudsman recognised this was”a very complex and sensitive case involving a very vulnerable child who had experienced traumatic events over a significant period of time”.

It found, however, that the delay of over three years – from the point Mr B made his first complaint to agreeing the action plan and an appropriate remedy – was excessive and unacceptable, amounting to significant injustice.

“I understand the council experienced a number of difficulties in dealing with the complaint but to take this length of time has caused further distress, harm and frustration to Mr B and delayed access to therapeutic support which was recommended over three years ago. Mr B has continually chased up the council and involved our office on several occasions. We tried to secure an outcome by the autumn of 2021 but the council still took another 12 months to complete the investigation and a further five months to draw up an action plan and offer a remedy. This was far too long,” the report said.

The Ombudsman welcomed the council’s efforts since November 2022 to meet with Mr B and include him at all stages in compiling the action plan. It also welcomed the agreement (with Mr B) to pay him £5,000 to recognise the significant injustice he has been caused.

The Ombudsman requested the council – within one month of the date of its final decision – pay the agreed £5,000 to Mr B, provide three-monthly updates to Mr B on progress with the agreed actions, and provide an update to the Ombudsman on complaints service changes after its review is completed in December 2023.

Bradford has agreed to these recommendations.

Marium Haque, Strategic Director of Children’s Services, said: “We fully accept the Ombudsman’s finding in this case and apologise to Mr B for the distress caused by the delays in resolving his complaint. As the Ombudsman acknowledges, this was a complex and sensitive case, but we agree that the time taken to resolve it was unacceptable and fell way below the standards we expect. We have compensated Mr B in recognition of the delay and will continue to keep him informed as to the progress of the actions from his complaint. We have also agreed to review our procedures and will update the Ombudsman on this review later this year.”

Harry Rodd