By:	Peter Oakford, Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services

Andrew Ireland, Corporate Director of Social Care, Health and

Wellbeing

To:	Children’s Social Care and Health Cabinet Committee –

8 September 2015

Subject:	COMPLAINTS AND REPRESENTATIONS 2014/15

Classification:	Unrestricted

Previous Pathway:	Specialist Children’s Services DivMT

Future Pathway:	None

Electoral Division:	All

_______________________________________________________________________

Summary: Recommendations:	This report provides information about the operation of the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure in 2014/15 as required by the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006. The Children’s Social Care and Health Cabinet Committee is asked NOTE the content of the report.

1.	Introduction

1.1	Specialist Children’s Services work with the most vulnerable children and families in	Kent. Much of the work is focused on intervening in family life and is governed by	complex legislation, guidance and policy. Included in the legislation is a	requirement to operate a robust complaints procedure for children and those closely	involved with them. The procedure provides people with the right to be heard, the	opportunity to resolve issues and to take matters further if they are not resolved, an	additional safeguard for vulnerable people and information for the Local Authority	which contributes towards quality assurance and service development.

1.2	The statutory requirement to produce an annual complaints report in respect of	Children’s Social Services is laid down by the Children Act 1989 Representations	Procedure (England) Regulations 2006. The associated guidance states that this	should be presented to staff and to Members and be made available to the	regulator (Secretary of State) and the general public.

1.3	All Children in Care in Kent are advised how to make a complaint. Information is	also available in leaflets, on the website, in local offices, from front line staff and via	partner organisations, so that all children in receipt of services, and the adults in	their lives, are encouraged to exercise their right to complain should they find	themselves dissatisfied with the service.

2.	Representations made to the local authority

Type of Record	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
Statutory complaints	267	305	224	222	196
Enquiry	166	151	149	148	139
Compliment	54	59	93	89	94
Non-statutory complaints	139	198	172	105	35
Representations and miscellaneous contact	*	267	269	316	253
Complaints total	406	503	396	328	235

*not previously reported.

Representations via elected representatives

2.1	Issues raised via MPs and County Councillors are usually registered and	responded to as enquiries but the elected representative is also advised of their	constituent’s right to make a statutory complaint if applicable.

Non-statutory complaints and representations

2.2	Complaints received about services excluded by the Government from the statutory	complaints procedure or from people without a statutory right to complain are	handled as Representations. Advice is given, they are recorded both on the	complaints database and on the client record and receive a written response from	the service manager. Those with a statutory right to complain are clients and	associated adults who are directly affected by the service. Functions excluded from	the complaints procedure include child protection investigations and court action	where there are other routes for challenging the Local Authority which would make	an independent investigation inappropriate. Complaints about non-statutory	functions are handled under the Council’s corporate complaints procedure. All	complainants and those making representations were advised of their right to	challenge the response via the Local Government Ombudsman.

2.3	Other “miscellaneous” contacts received included complaints about other local	authorities and organisations, HR issues, legal action and matters for the police.

3.	Contact method

Type of Record	Card/Gift	Email	Letter	Other	Telephone	Text	Website	Total
Children Act	0	99	57	1	37	0	2	196
Non-statutory Complaint	0	14	12	0	8	0	1	35
Enquiry	0	44	94	0	2	0	0	140
Compliment	9	43	11	28	1	0	0	94
Representation	0	64	42	1	28	0	7	142

3.1	As in previous years, it remains unusual for people to complain online; there is no	increase in use of the website to provide feedback. An additional 64 people	telephoned to make complaints, were given advice and help to record their	complaints in writing but did not pursue the complaints further.

4.	Compliments

4.1	Unsolicited representations made to the local authority from external sources	providing positive feedback about staff and services, are registered as	compliments.

4.2	Compliments were received about the following services.

Service
Adoption	9%
Assessment and Intervention	8%
Child Protection	4%
Children in Care	7%
Children in need	18%
Disabled children	9%
Respite care for disabled children	40%
Central Referral Unit	1%
Support for foster carers	3%
Special Guardianship support	1%

4.3	Compliments made by parents

Father re social worker “I made a complaint against (SW) …when I actually got talking to her we had a real in depth discussion where my life is and where it could be… I am amazed at the way she was with me – very friendly and professional and thorough with her assessment… she’s an outstanding social worker.”	61% of the total compliments received were from parents; most of those (88%)	were about the respite care service for disabled children, 13% about family support	services to children in need, 9% from adoptive parents about the process, 4% about	child protection intervention and 4% about the social work assessment of their	children.

Six compliments were made by children and young people: three were about	respite care, two from children in need and one from a child in care thanking her	social worker for her support.

Child to social worker “Thank you for making it possible for me to stay where I belong with my mummy and daddy.”

Compliments about social workers were received from the police and the courts.

From Kent Police to lead CP officer “We would like to express our thanks for your excellent work in the successful delivery of Operation Icon…This complex operation targeted an organised crime group involved in the rape and sexual exploitation of a number of vulnerable children… your role in the process and enforcement phases of this operation… was key to its ultimate success. Quite simply outstanding.”

Compliments about social workers were also received from Health, other Local	Authorities and a Headteacher.

School about social work assistant “…how pleased we are with the work that M has been doing with one of the pupils at the school… The pupil presents with very challenging behaviour …M’s very clear and direct approach in addressing these issues has meant that a very positive and trusting relationship has developed…we would like to thank M for the work that she has done …and highlight the difference it has made.”

5.	The number of statutory complaints at each stage and those considered by	the Local Government Ombudsman

5.1	It is a legal requirement to handle complaints from clients and closely associated	people complaining about services for Looked After Children, Children in Need and	certain other specified functions, according to the three stage procedure. This	requirement applies irrespective of where in the Local Authority the complaint is	received. Clients and certain other people have the right to access the procedure	and the Local Authority would be at risk of legal challenge if complaints were not	handled according to the requirements. The requirements are detailed and	prescriptive in terms of the eligibility of complainants and which complaints must be	handled under the procedure, as well as the process and timescales.

5.2	There are three stages to the statutory complaints procedure:

Stage One - Local Resolution,

Stage Two – Investigation,

Stage Three - Complaints Review Panel.

2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
Stage One – Local Resolution	267	305	223	228	193
Stage Two – Formal Investigation	26	26	27	33	25
Stage Three – Complaints Review Panel	2	1	0	2	1
Local Government Ombudsman referral *	11	18	23	30	29

*includes non-statutory complaints and enquiries about new complaints

5.3	Where a complaint is not resolved at Stage One, or Stage One is not completed	within timescale, the complainant has the right for the complaint to be considered at	Stage Two (Investigation Stage). This involves a thorough investigation into the	issues and consideration of the complaint by an off-line Investigating Officer and an	Independent Person.

5.4	Three Stage Two investigations were investigated at Stage Two without the	complaint having been considered at Stage One: a complex rates and charges	issue, an issue that had already been the subject of local efforts to resolve, and an	issue that had been raised and addressed previously via the complainant’s MP.

5.5	Stage Two investigations involve valuable, in-depth examination of cases which	frequently influences practice. Complainants have the right for their complaints to	progress to a Complaints Review Panel if they remain dissatisfied and the main	issues are not upheld at Stage Two.

5.6	13% of the statutory complaints received were investigated at Stage Two. This	represents an improvement over the previous year (15%).

5.7	59% of Stage Two complainants had received a written response at Stage One	within the statutory timescale. This is below the county average for responses at	Stage One. 51% had not had a discussion or meeting with the manager before the	reply at Stage One was written.

5.8	The emphasis in the legislation and guidance is on early resolution at a local level.	Kent’s policy is that local managers should usually meet, or at least speak with,	complainants, unless there is a good reason not to, to attempt resolution before	writing. This approach is reinforced in guidance and support provided by the	Complaints Team. Areas of the service that adopt this approach have a lower	proportion of Stage Two investigations. Staff at the local level are expected to

continue to try to resolve complaints when they escalate to Stage Two or beyond.

5.9	One complaint escalated to a Stage Three complaints review panel.

5.10	29 complaints were made to the Local Government Ombudsman of which 12 were	investigated. There had been a steady increase in LGO referrals over the	preceding four years but this did not continue in 2014/15. 11 of the referrals to the	LGO related to statutory complaints.

6.	Which Customer Groups made the complaints

6.1	Statutory complaints

Originator	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
Child or young person	36	29	36	43	32
Parent	191	230	149	138	130
Close relative	17	20	12	6	10
Carer	3	8	9	17	6
Foster carer	10	11	13	5	13
Other	3	0	0	5	0
Legal representative	4	6	1	0	1
Prospective adopter	0	0	4	0	1
Special Guardian	3	0	1	8	3
Total	267	305	225	222	196

7.	The types of complaints made

7.1	This section sets out the issues raised by complainants and what the statutory	complaints were about. While most complaints were not upheld they do provide	insight into how people directly affected by services experience them.

7.2	The breakdown by subject reflects how the complaints were presented by the	complainants themselves. There is some overlap between categories. Parents	unhappy with intervention by Specialist Children’s Services and/or decisions taken	by the Local Authority or a court of law were more likely to complain about the	social worker than complain directly about a decision. Children and Young People	were more likely to complain about specific actions and decisions and be clear	about the outcome they wanted.

Disputed decision

7.3	60% of complaints made by children and young people were disputing a decision	taken about their care or about arrangements for leaving care. Children and young	people accounted for 30% of the total complaints disputing decisions. The majority	were about accommodation: opposing proposed placement moves or decisions	about accommodation, including funding, for care leavers. Some care leavers over	the age of 21 complained about the decision to end support.

7.4	16% of the complaints about decisions were from parents with disabled children.	Most were challenging decisions about direct payments and short breaks. Some	complained because their children did not meet the criteria for support from the	Disabled Children’s Service.

Behaviour / attitude of staff

7.5	90% of these complaints were from parents. It remains unusual for children and	young people to complain about their social worker (two complaints). The	complaints from parents included allegations that social workers threatened, lied,	and were biased or negative towards them. A number of parents said that they	were not taken seriously.

7.6	It should be noted that it is not uncommon for complainants to personalise their	disagreement with decisions made or to focus their distress about the situation they	find themselves in onto the worker with whom they have most contact. As in	previous years the complaints reflect a public perception that decisions are taken by	individual social workers in isolation and that a change of social worker could result	in a different decision.

Lack of support / needs not met

7.7	40% of complaints made by children and young people were about a perceived lack	of support. A number of these were care leavers who wanted more help and	financial support when moving into independence. Others complained that they did	not receive enough support from, or have sufficient contact with, their social	workers. In contrast 10% of the complaints made by parents were about lack of	support or needs not met.

7.8	37% of the total number of complaints made about lack of support were from	parents, 36% were from carers (including foster carers) and 27% were from	children and young people.

Breach of confidentiality

7.9	Five complaints were received alleging confidentiality breaches. While this	represents only 2% of the complaints received, the allegations and the	repercussions described were serious matters.

8.	The outcome of complaints

8.1	Statutory complaints by overall outcome

8.2	186 Stage One complaints were completed in 2014/15; 36% were upheld or	partially upheld.

8.3	More than one outcome was recorded for some complaints; an upheld complaint	may generate an apology and a financial payment for example. It should be noted	that “Apology” is recorded only when fault has been identified. Explanation remains	the most common outcome of a complaint. “Issue resolved” is recorded when the	complainant has agreed resolution, usually in a meeting, before the written reply is	sent.

8.4	29 Stage Two complaints were completed in 2014/15. 16 complaints were partially	upheld and six were not upheld. Seven complaints were withdrawn. Seven were	referred to the Local Government Ombudsman.

8.5	Concerns and themes emerging in upheld complaints are set out in Section 8 on	Lessons learned.

Outcome of complaints considered by the Local Government Ombudsman

8.6	Complainants may contact the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) at any time	but the LGO will usually refer them back to the Local Authority as premature if it has	not had the opportunity to consider the complaints under its own procedures.	Sometimes the LGO will decide to investigate a complaint prematurely on the	grounds of urgency or because of the serious nature of the complaint. In some	cases people complain to the LGO because they have been told that they are	ineligible to access the statutory complaints procedure.

8.7	The Ombudsman’s decisions in 2014/15 were as follows.

Ombudsman Decision	Detail
Not investigated 7 complaints	Complainant X (see local settlement below) complained that the Local Authority’s investigation was inadequate. The LGO found that it could not add value to the Local Authority’s own investigation at stage 2 and that the remedy sought by the complainant in respect of the child protection investigation could not be achieved. Birth parent complained at the Council’s actions towards adoption. The LGO was satisfied with the Council’s responses and decided to take no further action. Complaint about a Section 7 report for court in private law proceedings had been handled as a Representation rather than a complaint as the appropriate avenue to challenge the Local Authority was in the court. The LGO agreed with the Local Authority. The father of a disabled child complained that the Local Authority would not carry out the same adaptations to his home as it had carried out to the home of his ex-wife. The LGO decided that the complainant was out of time as it related to decisions more than a year before and the complainant had had the opportunity to complain at the time. Complainant believed that contact arrangements between mother and child were changed because the complainant had been seen in the vicinity. The LGO agreed with the Council that information about the arrangements could not be shared with him as he did not have Parental Responsibility for the child. Representations had been made about the decision for children to be adopted. The LGO agreed with the Local Authority that a complaint investigation would be inappropriate as it could not overturn the decision of the court. Complainants alleged that the Local Authority had presented false information to the court in care proceedings and that the Local Authority had failed to investigate. The LGO said that it would not be appropriate to investigate a court decision.
Ombudsman Decision	Detail
Not in jurisdiction and discretion not exercised 2 complaints	Parent complained about insufficient support. The LGO would not investigate as the Local Authority was in Care Proceedings. Parent complained about a breach of confidentiality. The LGO said that it fell under the jurisdiction of the ICO.
No fault found 3 complaints	Parent complained about the format of LAC reviews. The LGO found no fault as there is no bar to holding LAC reviews in two parts. Parent complained that the Local Authority should have handled his complaint about issues raised about the handling of a child protection referral. The LGO found that the Local Authority acted according to the law by not handling the complaint under the statutory procedure. Parent complained that the social work should not have given the children a lift in his car without permission. The LGO found no injustice in the complaint.
Maladministration but no injustice to complainant 2 complaints	Child’s former carers disputed the decision not to allow them to care for the child in the long term and decisions about financial support. The Local Authority refunded monies owed and apologised for giving the impression that the carers would need to apply for an SGO to continue to care for the children. As the complainants had been assessed as unsuitable to be long-term carers for the children the LGO found no injustice caused. The Local Authority did not complete an assessment according to its transition policy however the LGO found no injustice resulted as the care package continued as it would have done.
Maladministration and injustice caused 1 complaint	Disabled young man was placed in a care home by Out of Hours in an emergency situation. It transpired over the next three days that the home could not meet his needs. The Local Authority agreed to apologise to the family and took the decision not to use that particular home again.
Local Settlement 5 complaints	Complainant X complained that the Local Authority had treated him unfairly when considering an allegation made against him. He also complained about not being fully informed about his daughter. The latter complaint had not been made before and the Local agreed to investigate it under stage 2. Father complained that the Local Authority had not conducted a proper investigation at stage 2; the LGO found no fault with the investigation but found that the Local Authority had not offered a reasonable remedy for some of his complaints. The Local Authority accepted the LGO’s recommendations to resolve the complaints. Prospective adopters claimed that they were led to believe that two children would be placed with them. The LGO found that an email to arrange introductions was misleading and that the Local Authority failed to tell them that it was also considering another couple for the children. The Local Authority agreed to formally apologise, to change its procedures and to offer a payment for distress. The Local Authority promised not to disclose the identity of a relative making a child protection referral but failed to redact the information from a report that was shared with the parents. The Local Authority agreed to pay £350 for avoidable distress and time and trouble to make the complaint. The Local Authority failed to provide financial assistance to temporary relative carers. The complaint was settled when the Local Authority calculated and paid the monies owed.
Investigation discontinued 1 complaint	Father complained that his child was collected from school by a social worker and the police without his permission. The LGO found that the incident had taken place more than a year before and the complainant had had the opportunity to raise his concerns sooner.

9.	Details about advocacy services provided under these arrangements

9.1	It is a statutory requirement for the Local Authority to offer an advocate to a child or	young person wishing to make a complaint.

9.2	32 (16%) of the complaints were made by children and young people.

9.3	19 complaints were received from advocates on behalf of children / young people.	12 children and young people contacted the Local Authority direct themselves to	make a complaint and were offered the advocacy service; four took up the offer.	One complaint about SCS formed just part of a complaint which was managed by	the Mental Health Trust and an independent advocate was not involved. One	young person was supported to make a complaint by an accommodation provider.

9.4	In total 24 children and young people used an advocate to help them pursue their	complaints. All were children in care or care leavers.

9.5	Changes were made to Kent’s advocacy arrangements on 1 April 2015 so that	there is now one point of contact for independent advocacy for all children and	young people in Kent wishing to make a complaint, irrespective of their status.

10.	Compliance with timescales, and complaints resolved within extended	timescale

10.1	Changes to the process were introduced in April 2014 to enable improved	performance against timescales and introduce greater management accountability.	This has resulted in a significant improvement in performance against both statutory	and corporate timescales.

10.2	Statutory timescales

The Local Authority must consider and try to resolve Stage One complaints within	ten working days of the start date. This can be extended by a further ten working	days where the complaint is considered to be complex. Many of the complaints	recorded were considered complex, for example, when more than one agency or	service was involved or when cases were involved in other processes such as court	proceedings:

98% of Stage One acknowledgements were sent out within three working days.

68% of Stage One responses met the ten day timescale set.

75% of Stage One responses met the 20 day (extended) timescale.

79% of all Stage One responses were completed within 20 days (cp 52% in 2013/14).

10.3	The Local Authority should consider Stage Two complaints within 25 working days	of the start date (the date upon which a written record of the complaints to be	investigated has been agreed) but this can be extended to 65 working days where	this is not possible. The complexity of the complaints at Stage Two made a 25 day	target unachievable and all were extended. 40% of Stage Two complaints were	fully completed within 65 working days in 2014/15. (Only one Stage Two complaint	was completed within timescale in 2013/14).

10.4	It is also a statutory requirement to try to resolve complaints and care must be	taken not to jeopardise resolution or quality when seeking to improve performance	against timescales. The proportion of complaints escalating to Stage Two and the	LGO did not increase in 2014/15.

10.5	Corporate timescales

97% of non-statutory complaints were acknowledged within three working days .

72% of non-statutory complaints met the 20 day timescale (51% in 2013/14).

96% of enquiries were acknowledged within three working days.

67% of enquiries were completed within 20 working days (51% in 2013/14).

11.	Learning the Lessons from Complaints

11.1	Complaints usually result in actions on particular cases. The lessons summarised	in this section are those with wider implications which have needed to be shared	across the county to improve the service to children and their families. They are	mainly taken from complaints which were upheld in full or partially, and resulted in	an apology, change of decision, change of policy or some other action taken as the	direct consequence of a complaint. Some lessons learned came out of Stage Two	investigations and were not necessarily the main issues that complainants	themselves had raised.

11.2	Most lessons learned were about practice and communication issues. A number of	complaints may have been avoided with clearer and more frequent communication.	The main issues arising were as follows.

Communication issues including ambiguities and misunderstandings exacerbated by not confirming decisions in writing and the poor quality of recording

Life story work not completed in a timely manner or not of a good standard

Failure to fully engage with and consult some adults with parental responsibility when completing assessments of children

Inconsistencies in financial support to relative carers and Special Guardians

Confidentiality breaches which could have been avoided with better systems for checking and signing off documents before they were distributed.

11.3	In all cases action was taken locally to resolve complaints on an individual basis. A	number of changes to policy and /or procedures were made or planned to address	some of the issues raised which were potentially widespread across the service	rather than isolated local incidents. Examples in 2014/15 include:

Financial support to carers is managed robustly since a major review of the policy and payment rates. There is now a clearer written policy. Training was provided for all staff across the county and complaints reduced significantly at the latter end of the year

Complaints highlighted an issue with Liberi (the client system) which automatically pulled historic data relating to individuals into new reports, sometimes when it was irrelevant and distressing to the individual concerned. The system issue has now been resolved

Adopters complained that a story book had been used in work with the child they were adopting which was inappropriate for their situation as a same-sex couple. As the direct result of the complaint a wider range of material was purchased for work with adoptive families

All staff were required to complete information governance training.

11.4	Themes identified in previous years but not repeated this year are also an indication	that lessons have been learned and that system and practice changes had an	effect. The main themes identified in 2013/14 which showed a significant	reduction	in 2014/15 were:

Fewer complaints from children and young people about impending placement moves from temporary, emergency placements. Complaints last year highlighted the need to explain the nature of an emergency placement at the outset and to explain that more suitable long-term placement will be identified that better meets the young person’s needs once an assessment is completed.

Fewer complaints about the wishes and feelings of children not being recorded and taken into account in decision-making

Fewer complaints indicating inconsistent practice in providing leaving care grants and education bursaries.

12.	Summary of statistical data about complainants

12.1	Diversity information is taken from the client system in respect of Children and	Young People and a form is sent with every complaint acknowledgement seeking	information on the ethnicity, gender and age of complainants because, for most	people, this information is not already held by the Local Authority.

12.2	One of the main purposes of the introduction of the complaints procedure was to	provide a voice for children and young people. While closely associated adults also	have the right to complain about how they are affected by services, it is right that	the Council continues to seek ways to make the procedure more accessible to	children.

12.3	69% of children and young people who made complaints were 19 years old or	younger. This is a higher proportion than in 2013/14 (57%). This is due in part to a	reduction in complaints from asylum-seeking care leavers.

13.	Review of the effectiveness of the complaints procedure

13.1	The quality of responses to enquiries and performance against timescales for	enquiries and complaints was reviewed in February 2013 and changes agreed by	the Divisional Management Team were implemented from April 2014 to improve	standards and to improve the experience of complainants. New guidance has	been produced for staff, timescales have been shortened and senior managers are	automatically alerted earlier in the process if complaints are not addressed within a	week of receipt. These changes, supported by senior management and the Lead	Cabinet Member, have had a significant positive effect upon performance against	timescales. The changes do not appear to have affected escalation rates	significantly.

13.2	A new Representations Policy was introduced in October 2013 for the handling of	complaints which fell outside the scope of the regulations. The purpose was to	ensure compliance with the regulations, to minimise risk to child protection	investigations and other statutory processes, and to avoid raising complainants’	expectations that decisions made by, for example, a child protection conference,	could be changed by the complaints procedure. The policy was reviewed in	October 2014 and recommended continuation with some minor changes to	standard acknowledgement letters and the introduction of a five-day timescale for	written responses by service managers. The Local Government Ombudsman (see	section 5) investigated four cases that had been handled as representations in	2014/15 and did not find fault with the process.

13.3	Actions needed and practice issues to be disseminated are discussed and agreed	at each adjudication meeting held to decide the outcome of a Stage Two	investigation. Adjudication meetings were chaired by Assistant Directors or the	Director and	outcomes shared more widely when appropriate.

13.4	The Complaints Team responded to a number of team/unit requests for information	about complaints relating to their services in 2014/15, attended management team	meetings to provide presentations on complaints handling, and provided induction	sessions for new managers.

13.5	Two half-day training sessions for social work staff were provided using	“Complaints Made Easy”. The size of the pool of officers available to carry out	investigations at Stage Two was increased at the end of the year, and two half-day	training sessions were provided for new investigating Officers.

13.6	The Complaints Team monitors complaints by service unit and area. Weekly	reports were provided for management in 2014/15 summarising complaints and	highlighting overdue responses. Complaints highlighting issues with policy, practice	across the county or serious failings were brought to the attention of the Divisional	Management Team. Other regular reports about complaints and representations	included quarterly monitoring to Specialist Children’s Services DivMT via	Management Information Unit (MIU), to CMT via the Strategic and	Corporate	Services Directorate, and to the Adoption Improvement Board. Complaints	data on performance and by subject was also provided for some Area Deep Dives.

13.7	The contract to provide Independent Persons in Stage Two investigations as	required by the legislation was put out to tender in 2014/15 and awarded to the	Young Lives Foundation from 1 April 2015.

13.8	The Council continues to operate a robust service for people making complaints	about	Specialist Children’s Services in accordance with legal requirements.

14.	Recommendations

14.1	The Children’s Social Care and Health Cabinet Committee is asked to NOTE

the content of the report

15.	Report Author

Tricia Denney

Assistant Director – Safeguarding and Quality Assurance

03000 416927

Patricia.denney@kent.gov.uk

16.	Background Documents

16.1	None