Written evidence from LGSCO (CFA0077)

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

Baroness Tyler of Enfield

Chair, Children and Families Act 2014 Inquiry

House of Commons

London SW1A 0AA

25 April 2022

Dear Lady Tyler,

LGSCO contribution to the inquiry into the Children and Families Act 2014

About the Ombudsman

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is the statutory body for complaints about the actions of care providers and local authorities. It is a free service. Our role is to investigate complaints in a fair and independent way – we do not take sides.

We look at the actions of councils in delivering the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process. For example, complaints about delay in assessing a child or issuing a plan, failing to provide support and carrying out reviews. The complaints we receive about SEND often involve more than one statutory duty by the council. We can also look at complaints regarding council services for children in care and need, and complaints about adoption services.  

We look into the circumstances of an individual complaint and make judgements on whether the person affected has suffered injustice. We then make recommendations for improvement.

These recommendations can be at an individual level and are designed to put the person affected back into the situation they would have been in had they not suffered the injustice. We also make recommendations for overall service improvement across a local authority area. Although we don’t have formal enforcement powers, we have very high compliance with our recommendations from the bodies in our jurisdiction; our compliance rate is consistently over 99.5%.

We also have a role in improving services as a whole and do this by sharing the learning from our complaints through our thematic reports and guidance.

We welcome this opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee’s inquiry into the reforms in the Children and Families Act 2014.

Summary of key points

•                  We believe the reforms introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014 have the potential, if implemented well, to provide more integrated, person-centred support for children and young people, including those with SEND, across education, health and social care.

•                  We are an evidence-driven organisation, and only provide comment based on the evidence from our casework. As such we don’t have a direct response to the specific questions of this inquiry. However, as the final stage of redress for the vast majority of complaints regarding EHC plans, we have unique insight into how the SEND system is being implemented in practice. We also have insight into how council services for children in care and adoption services are being managed, and are taking this opportunity to share this with you.  

•                  We have recently published a report into our COVID-19 related cases, which touches on the impact of the pandemic on children’s services and children and young people with SEND.

•                  In the complaints we have investigated about EHC plans the following are consistent themes: delays and failure to meet statutory deadlines, failing to involve parents and young people properly in the decision-making process, not gathering sufficient evidence to inform decisions, poor communication, lack of partnership working, and a failure to provide the special educational need support as specified in the plan.

•                  While we receive comparatively few cases about services for children in care, the learning we have gathered from these cases points to serious issues in council administration of these services. We have long standing concerns that the numbers of complaints in this area remains low and believe this is due to many care-experienced young people lacking the ability or knowledge to complain or being concerned there will be negative implications if they do so. Improving awareness of our work among this group was one of our business plans objectives during 2021-22.

•                  We would encourage the committee to also consider the effectiveness of redress arrangements for SEND as part of its inquiry. We remain concerned that due to the limits of our current jurisdiction, we cannot consider complaints about the actions of a school in relation to an EHC plan. The education aspects of EHC plans remain subject to different complaint procedures. These separate systems can make it difficult for parents and families to navigate their way to get redress. In addition, many children and young people have additional needs, but do not meet the threshold for an EHC plan. These individuals and their families have no one to turn to if the local authority and school is failing to meet their needs. To resolve this, we believe the LGSCO’s jurisdiction should be extended to consider the actions of a school in fulfilling an EHC plan and complaints about SEND provision within a school for children and young people without an EHC plan. This simple step would enable all those who need it to seek redress through one route. We are extremely concerned that the recently published SEND and Alternative Provision Green Paper makes no reference to our role in the redress system.

•                  We have a number of cases that help shed light on how the SEND system and children’s services are working in practice. We have produced two thematic reports on the topic of EHC plans Education, Health and Care Plans: our first 100 investigations in 2017 and Not going to plan? – Education, Health and Care Plans two years on in 2019. We also published a thematic report on services for children in care Careless: Helping to improve council services to children in care in 2020. Details of these and our casework relevant to this inquiry are given below.

What our casework shows

SEND cases

We have seen an increase in the volume of complaints about EHC plans coming to us. In 2021-22, we received a total of 454 complaints about EHC plans – some 18% more than in 2019-20, and an increase of 64% since 2017-18. We also uphold 85% of the detailed investigations we undertake – this is exceptionally high and well in excess of the 66% average across all areas of our work.

In October 2017, we published a focus report[1] Education, Health and Care Plans: our first 100 investigations highlighting common features in the first 100 investigations about EHC plans we carried out. Based on our casework, some of the most significant areas of concern were:

•                  delays (up to 90 weeks and regularly over 52 weeks) in issuing EHC plans and transferring statements to plans
•                  problems with gathering evidence needed for the EHC assessment
•                  poor preparation for meetings with families, missing key attendees or essential information
•                  lack of transition planning and confusion about key phase transfers
•                  problems with decision-making about placements and provision in new EHC plans
•                  failure to follow correct processes when using panels in decision-making
•                  failure to name a school placement in a final EHC plan
•                  failure to provide specialist support

Below are some common themes from our cases at the time.

Delays in transferring to an EHC plan 

To transfer a young person from a statement to an EHC plan, councils must undertake a formal transfer review. As part of this, councils must give parents at least two weeks’ notice before the transfer review begins. They must then issue a final EHC plan within 20 weeks from informing parents about the start of the transfer review process.

Delay remains an overriding feature in most of the complaints we investigate, with councils frequently failing to comply with timeframes set out in legislation. Although delays vary in degree, we have seen councils taking months over the statutory 20 weeks limit and also delays exceeding a year. Councils are responsible for arranging meetings and responses to queries in a timely manner to ensure the process is completed within the statutory timeframes. We have seen instances of councils issuing an inadequate or incomplete EHC plan to meet statutory timescales. While parents have appeal rights and disputes over the contents of plans are matters for the courts, not the Ombudsman, this is poor practice and goes fundamentally against the aim of parents not having to fight to get the right support.

In our investigations, we find that delay is often accompanied by other faults. When the process overruns, it leads to delay in implementing provision for the child and prevents parents from pursuing timely appeals to the tribunal.

Gathering evidence to inform the EHC assessment

Any new request, or a transfer to an EHC Plan, requires an EHC needs assessment. New assessments do not need to be undertaken if the council, parents and the professionals who gave the advice all agree the existing advice is sufficient for an EHC needs assessment.

A common feature of the cases we investigate is councils failing to have discussions to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to inform the EHC assessment with the family early enough, or at all. This often causes delays later and can lead to unnecessary complaints and appeals, when parents challenge the absence of up-to-date evidence, or the fact that the draft EHC plan does not reflect the child’s current needs.

Where new or additional advice is needed, we have seen examples of councils not obtaining this within the statutory timeframe of six weeks, and not giving professionals clear instructions, meaning the advice obtained is not detailed and specific enough to write a clear EHC plan. Sometimes councils need to seek clarification from a professional several times, which leads to unnecessary delay. We have also investigated complaints about cases where councils have wrongly sought to delegate the duty to gather evidence to the school or family.

Meetings and transfer reviews

The transfer from statements to EHC plans should be carefully managed to minimise the disruption for the child and parents. It usually takes the place of the annual review and should be in the academic year within which the transfer occurs. In the complaints we investigate, we often see cases of poor communication with families given confusing information or not realising the usual review meeting was the transfer review.

Other common faults we see are councils: 

•                  intending to use the annual review meeting as the transfer meeting but failing to issue the notice so a further meeting has to be held in order to comply with the rules
•                  asking the school to hold the annual review and using this as the transfer meeting even though no relevant local authority officer attends
•                  arranging the meeting too late to meet key transfer deadlines or the timescale for issuing a final EHC plan
•                  telling families at the start of the academic year their next annual review meeting will be used for EHC transfer but then causing confusion by not going ahead with the transfer when the annual review comes round
•                  realising at the end of the EHC process no meeting has been held and pressuring parents to hold it at short notice (in one case 24 hours) or by telephone so the council meets its statutory deadlines for issuing the EHC plan
•                  failing to consider whether an annual review format with a range of professionals attending is the best one to allow the child or young person to participate fully in the assessment and planning process

When councils don’t use the annual review meeting as the transfer review, it is usually down to poor forward planning or confusion about the new process. Often this adds to the administrative burden on families (and councils) rather than reducing it – because two meetings need to be held, sometimes in quick succession.

Making decisions about placements and provision in a new EHC plan

After an EHC needs assessment, parents or families can make requests for personal budgets and ask for a specific school or college to be named in the plan. Based on our casework, problems can frequently arise when discussions about placements happen too late in the EHC needs assessment process. While the placement section of a draft EHC has to be left blank to allow parents to express their preference, this does not prevent councils from having early placement discussions with parents.

Making a placement decision in the final plan which has not been discussed in advance with the family can lead to disagreements and appeals. It can also mean families don’t have enough information about the costs of different options or miss out on the opportunity to consider if a personal budget or direct payments might be suitable.

In cases we see where EHC planning works well, there is regular and open communication and discussion with families throughout the process and they are kept informed of placements being considered. While there is no obligation on parents to share their preference before draft plan stage, early discussions about placement do not bind families to a particular option later on and may help minimise delay and disappointment.

Sometimes councils need to consult several schools before a suitable place is found and this time needs to be factored into the EHC process. We see cases where late consultation has led to pupils missing out on the start of the school year or being out of education.

Where a family might want a personal budget, councils should be able to estimate provision costs (which would include placement, transport, health and social care) and share this at a stage when the family has time to consider and propose alternatives.

We find councils sometimes don’t have the necessary financial information to be able to properly consider parental preferences or requests for personal budgets. In particular, social care and transport costs are frequently not factored in when comparing the costs of placements. Sometimes this means councils are refusing the parent’s preferred placement even when it is no more expensive in real terms and should have been agreed.

Failing to name a school in a final EHC plan

Our experience shows councils are issuing final EHC plans with no school or college named, often due to consulting schools too late. To comply with statutory timescales, some councils are issuing final plans with only a type of placement named, or no placement named at all. The extra time while any appeals are heard is then used as an extension to the EHC process, with councils issuing a second final EHC plans once a school place is identified.

There may be cases where despite the council’s efforts, it is not possible to identify a suitable school place before the final EHC plan is due. If a council is unable to name a school placement in a final EHC plan, it can name a type of school, but this should be a last resort.

We also see recurring instances of parents submitting an appeal against the school named in their child’s EHC plan where the council concedes just before the appeal is heard, agreeing to the parents’ preferred choice of school. These are matters we cannot investigate as parents will have initiated the appeal. However this causes significant frustration to parents as it deprives them of the opportunity to obtain some form of redress for the delay that has occurred.

In 2019 we produced a follow up focus report: Not going to plan? – Education, Health and Care Plans two years on[2].

This report concluded that while the problems we found in 2017 could potentially be explained by a new system bedding in, more up to date investigations suggest a system in crisis. Through our casework we have found persistent problems in the following areas:

•                  Severe delays in carrying out assessments and issuing an EHC plan – of up to 90 weeks but regularly more than a year
•                  Poor planning and anticipation of needs – for example some councils areas not having any of the specialist provision available to them
•                  Poor communication and preparation for meetings, including instances of non-attendance by council officers
•                  Inadequate partnership working – for example ECH plans regularly issued without advice form health or social care services
•                  Lack of oversight form senior managers, which can mean cases not being taken forward in a timely manner

We have also, perhaps most worryingly, seen examples of local authorities putting up unnecessary barriers for children and families, in order to ration scarce resources.

Through our casework we also increasingly see local authorities outsourcing their responsibilities to third parties. This is within the law, and we are able to investigate the actions of third parties acting on behalf of the local authority and hold the local authority to account against these. However, it makes finding out what has happened and who is responsible more difficult in many cases, which can prolong our investigations.

Below are some common themes from the cases examined in our 2019 focus report.

Delay

The whole process from first request for an EHC plan assessment, to issuing a final plan, must take no longer than 20 weeks. Delay is a factor in most SEND complaints we investigate. Sometimes, councils have attributed this to staff shortages or absence, decisions needing to be signed off by managers or panels, or delays by other bodies in providing evidence and advice.

We expect councils, as the lead agency in the EHC process, to have appropriate commissioning and partnership arrangements in place to allow SEND officers to obtain advice for EHC plans in a timely way and to have mechanisms to address problems that arise.

Applying the right legal test for an EHC needs assessment

The law provides two triggers for when a council needs to decide whether to carry out an EHC needs assessment. Either a request is made by the parent, young person or school; or the council becomes responsible for the child or young person.

A council becomes responsible if a child or young person is in the council’s area and has been identified, or brought to the council’s attention, as someone who has, or may have, SEND. The SEND Code sets out the factors councils should take into account in deciding whether to carry out an assessment. It says councils may develop their own criteria as a guide to help officers but must be willing to depart from their own criteria where there are compelling reasons. Advice on accessing an EHC assessment should be set out in a council’s local offer. The law and guidance does not specify how a request has to be made, or state that any specific information must be provided, to trigger a request.

In some investigations we have found councils not reacting appropriately to a request for an assessment or introducing additional requirements to trigger an assessment decision. This can be linked to attempts to ration scarce resources as set out above.

Legally compliant assessments

The quality of an EHC plan depends on councils collecting advice from all relevant professionals and on the advice collected being sufficiently detailed and precise. We continue to see complaints where councils are failing to obtain all the necessary advice, and have seen examples of councils restricting the scope of the advice they obtain due to resource pressures.

Section 36 of the Children and Families Act 2014 says an EHC assessment is ‘an assessment of the educational, health care and social care needs of a child or young person’. Regulation 6(1) of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 sets out the list of advice the council must seek.

Lack of involvement of health and social care

The Government has issued guidance for health and social care professionals about their role in the EHC plan process. This sets out an expectation for education and training to be integrated with health and social care provision, where this would promote wellbeing and improve the quality of support for disabled young people and those with SEND. In their joint commissioning role with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), councils are responsible for arranging EHC needs assessments and the support specified in EHC plans. The Government expects close co-operation between education, health and social care to research, plan, commission and review services.

However, we consistently see cases where a lack of partnership working between local authorities and the health and social care sectors is a factor. For example, ECH plans regularly issued without advice from health or social care services.

There are separate complaint routes for services provided by the NHS and those by the local authority. At the end of each route is access to the relevant Ombudsman (either LGSCO or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman) and the option for the complaints to be considered by one investigator from our joint working team.

Personal budgets

Children with EHC plans and their families have the right to request a personal budget for their support, which can include funding from education, health and social care. Councils have a duty to prepare a personal budget when requested. When a young person or parent is seeking an innovative or alternative way to receive their support, the planning and review process must consider these solutions.

However, we see cases of delays in providing personal budgets, not providing the budget in full and not evidencing the reason why. 

Annual reviews

The SEND Code says EHC plans should be used to actively monitor a child or young person’s progress towards their outcomes and long-term aspirations. Councils must review plans at least every 12 months. Reviews must be undertaken in partnership with the child, young person and their parents, and must take account of their views and wishes, including the right to request a personal budget. The first review must be held within 12 months of issuing the first EHC plan, and then within 12 months of any previous review.

We consistently see cases of councils not reviewing plans within the specified timeframe, and not taking proper account of the views of children and their parents as part of the review process.

Amending or ceasing a plan

When a council proposes to amend a plan it must send the parent or young person a copy of the current plan and an amendment notice detailing the proposed amendments. It must include evidence to support the proposed changes. A council may end a plan if it is no longer responsible for the child or young person, or if it decides it is no longer necessary to maintain the plan. A lack of resources should never be the primary factor in deciding whether to amend or cease an EHC plan. Decisions must be made on the basis of need and evidence.

We have seen cases of councils amending or ceasing a plan without informing the child or family or discussing the decision with them.

In addition, in some of our cases we have found the decision to cease or amend a plan has been driven by resourcing constraints rather than the needs of the child.

Voice of a young person

One of the main changes in the 2014 Act and Code was an emphasis on the participation of young people in discussions and decisions about their own support, and at a strategic level.

Councils must consider whether some young people require support to express their views, such as an advocate, and should have arrangements in place to engage with them directly. The rights of young people older than 16 to make decisions is subject to their capacity to do so, which is set out in the Mental Capacity Act. The presumption is young people have capacity to make their own decisions unless proven otherwise. Young people can ask a parent to act on their behalf.

We expect councils to engage with young people directly about complaints unless they have asked their parent to be their representative or they lack the capacity to bring the complaint themselves. Unfortunately, we sometimes see cases where councils do not engage with the young person and involve them fully in decisions about their care.

Transition to adulthood

EHC plans should be reviewed and amended to give sufficient time for planning and commissioning of placements when a child or young person moves between phases of education. Transition planning for adulthood should start in Year 9. Councils have statutory duties to consider the educational needs of the young person, whether a young person is likely to need care and support after they reach 18, and whether their carer’s needs might change. The SEND Code sets out the importance of a full programme of provision that covers five days a week for young adults with an EHC plan.

Councils need to ensure health, education and social care services work together to ensure a smooth transition post 18; that it engages with the young person directly, and provides accurate and timely advice about associated matters, like transport to college.

We see cases where a lack of proper transition planning, including delays in planning, a lack of proper consideration of the relevant evidence, and a failure to seek relevant advice, are factors. This often leaves young people with additional needs without the relevant support once they reach adulthood.

Adoption cases

We can look at complaints about the process for adopting children and ensure those processes are fair and in accordance with government guidance. While we don’t receive a large number of complaints on this topic, we provide a vital service in providing redress when things go wrong, either in the process for applying to become adopters or with subsequent support.

We have a number of cases that show examples of how councils can make errors in the management of adoption cases. These errors include failure to follow statutory guidance, delays in the process and issues with post adoption support. 

For example in a complaint we upheld against City of Wolverhampton Council (LGSCO ref: 19 011 134) we found that the Council failed to adhere to the Department of Education’s 2013 statutory guidance on adoption, as the complainant was assessed on her suitability to adopt before she had formally registered her interest. In a similar case against Herefordshire County Council (LGSCO ref: 20 000 831) we found that the Council did not follow the statutory guidance in its assessment of the complainant as suitable for adoption, as the Council considered the information it held after the enquiry and before a registration of interest had been signed.

We also see instances of significant delays in assessment. For example in a case against the London Borough of Wandsworth (LGSCO ref: 19 020 143) we found that the Council failed to progress the complainant’s adoption assessment and delayed in dealing with her subsequent complaint. This resulted in her approval as an adopter being delayed by over two years.

In addition, we also find problems with the support that local councils provide post adoption. In a case against Middlesbrough Borough Council (LGSCO ref: 21 003 262) we found the Council failed to provide respite provision in line with an agreed adoption support package. In a case against the London Borough of Merton (LGSCO ref: 20 013 681) the Council delayed in how it responded to a request for financial support from an adoptive parent. In another case against the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (LGSCO ref: 20 011 777) we found that the Council failed to provide information to adoptive parents on the full details of their adopted child’s past, due to frequent changes of social worker.

Children’s care cases

In 2020 we published a focus report looking at our cases relating to council services for children in care: Careless: helping to improve council services to children in care[3].

We receive a relatively small number of cases about children in care. However, we know this is partly because children in care are reluctant to come to us or lack the ability to complain. The number of children in care is also growing: the latest figures show a 28% increase in the last decade (up from 60,900 in 2009 to 78,150 in 2019). We therefore think it important to share the learning from our cases in this area to help councils improve the quality of their services.

In the last five years we have received more than 150 complaints and enquiries a year in which we identified problems about services to children in care as the key issue.

In the year 2019-2020, we investigated 30 complaints in detail and upheld 67% of these. Our uphold rate for investigations across all our work was 62%. In the year 2021-22, we investigated 41 complaints in detail and upheld 83% of these. Our uphold rate for investigations across all our work in this year was 66%.

The case studies in this report are from investigations completed before the Covid-19 outbreak. The following are some common issues we identified in this report.

Coming into care

The type of ongoing support and financial assistance children, and their carers, receive is especially reliant on the decisions councils make when children first come into care. Often relatives or family friends step in to provide stability and prevent children going into care.

Our investigations have seen examples where those stepping in are given inadequate advice from their council or receive promises of financial assistance and support that do not materialise.

Cases often centre on the legal basis for the child entering care. If councils claim the arrangement was a private matter, the child is not classed as ‘looked after’ and the council therefore has no duty to provide support.

Care planning

When a child comes into care, a care and placement plan must be written. Social workers must visit children in care every six weeks. Care plans must be reviewed a minimum of every six months. Independent reviewing officers must ensure decisions are in the child’s best interests and there is no undue delay in meeting their needs.

If children cannot return home to their birth parents, councils must consider alternative long-term placements, first with family members. Councils should apply for a Placement Order if adoption is considered the best option. This gives the council authority to place a child with prospective adopters without parental consent.

We see examples of poor care planning, including poor record keeping, delays in undertaking plans, failure to communicate, and councils not sharing relevant information. This can have severe consequences for the children and young people affected.

Ensuring stability

A key function of a child’s care plan is to ensure there is a long-term plan for their upbringing. This is known as permanency planning, and it identifies which option is most likely to meet the needs and wishes of the child. Councils have a duty to secure suitable accommodation within their area, as far as possible (The Children Act 1989). The definition of permanence planning was extended to incorporate where the child will live, and any harm they have suffered or are likely to suffer (The Children and Social Work Act 2017).

We have seen examples of councils removing children from placements without warning and without following the proper procedures, resulting in significant distress to children and guardians.

Contact arrangements

Section 34 of the Children Act gives councils a duty to provide birth parents, and other relevant people, reasonable contact with children in care. When courts make a Care or Placement Order, they may specify the level of contact the child should have, but often it is left to the council’s discretion.

When decided by the council, contact arrangements are considered at the statutory review meeting. A contact plan is produced which takes into account the child’s wishes and considers their best interests. Parents can apply for a contact order if they are dissatisfied with the level of contact a council is allowing under section 34 of the Children Act. Siblings taken into care, but not placed together, often wish to have continued contact.

We see cases where the council is not honouring contact arrangements, or not taking into account the views of family members or the child regarding contact.

Accommodation for 16 and 17 year olds

Children aged 16 or 17 can provide their own consent to being accommodated and do not need a parent’s agreement. When children of this age approach councils for help finding somewhere to live, a common issue we see is councils failing to properly consider whether they should provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. This can result in the young person becoming homeless or living in unsuitable accommodation.

Case law and Government guidance has restated the legal position that a council’s duty under section 20 of the Children Act towards young people aged 16 or 17 who require accommodation, takes precedence over its duties under the Housing Act. (Statutory guidance - Provision of Accommodation for 16 and 17 year old young people who may be homeless and/or require accommodation 2010).

Councils also have a ‘sufficiency’ duty to secure enough appropriate accommodation to meet the needs of the children in their care.

Support for care leavers

Councils have a responsibility to support and prepare children as they are leaving care. Councils should publish a Local Offer, informing care leavers of the services available to them. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 extended the length of time all care leavers should have personal advisor, up to the age of 25.

In 2018 the government launched the Care Leaver Covenant – a pledge to help people leaving care to become independent. It was said at the time: “we are the parents for these children and young people and the way to think about that is what would I want for my child”.

However, we see cases of the council failing in this responsibility, leaving care leavers unprepared to navigate the world as an adult, without the knowledge for example to search for a job or obtain housing. This can result serious injustice to the young person affected.

The effect of the pandemic on children’s services

In February 2022 we published a focus report looking at the first 18 months of our investigations related to COVID-19: Unprecedented pressure: Learning from complaints about council and care provider actions during the COVID-19 pandemic[4]. This report looked at all our COVID-19 related cases across all areas of our casework. As such it included some cases relating to SEND and EHC plans, as well as children’s services as a whole. 

During the successive COVID-19 lockdowns and associated restrictions, the education of children with SEND was particularly, and in some cases unavoidably, disrupted. For a limited period, the government allowed councils to suspend their normal absolute duty to secure provision required by EHC plans, replacing this with a need to make “reasonable endeavours”.

We investigated several complaints about these matters, finding faults where councils failed to properly record or show how they had considered “reasonable endeavours”. We also found examples where the impact of pre-existing delays in carrying out assessments before the pandemic was worsened by what then happened. This meant children avoidably missed out on important provision. In other cases, we found councils had failed to keep parents properly informed of changes in provision and delays in securing that provision. This caused them distress and uncertainty about what was happening and the options available to meet their children’s needs.

In addition, we also received a number of complaints relating to the statutory complaints process for children’s services. The way councils deal with complaints about children’s services is set out in statutory guidance, and follows a three-stage process. This process, which aims to ensure thorough, independently scrutinised and rigorous investigation, was unaffected by the Coronavirus Act and other changes to legislation. Our investigations found examples of councils wrongly suspending the statutory process during the pandemic, meaning people were denied access to this vital check on potentially flawed practice. We have recently published a guide to learning from our investigations involving the children’s services complaints procedure, Guide for practitioners: children’s statutory complaints process[5].

We hope this evidence and information will be of use to the inquiry. We would also be pleased to give oral evidence to the committee if it would be helpful to expand on our experience of investigating complaints relating to the EHC system, and children’s care and adoption services.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Michael King

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for England

Chair, Commission for Local Administration in England

April 2022