Ealing Council has apologised after a mother was wrongly denied a final review of concerns about the mother-and-baby foster placement where she was living with her baby.
The woman, referred to as Miss X by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, had complained about a lack of hot water and heating at the mother-and-baby placement. She also raised concerns about religious discrimination and said she had been prevented from travelling because of racial profiling.
A council investigation later upheld all four of her complaints and recommended an apology and staff training.
But when Miss X asked for her case to go to the third and final stage of the statutory children’s complaints process, Ealing Council refused.
The Ombudsman found the council was at fault, saying Miss X had a right to take her complaint through all three stages once it had been accepted under the statutory process.
Miss X and her baby had initially stayed in a specialist unit after an Interim Care Order was granted for her child, before being moved to the mother-and-baby foster placement.
When she first complained to Ealing Council, it partially upheld only one of her complaints. Miss X asked for the decision to be looked at again under the second stage of the statutory complaints process.
A further investigation recommended that all four complaints should be fully upheld, a finding accepted by the council. Five recommendations were agreed, including staff training and a written apology to Miss X.
During the complaints process, Miss X sought financial redress for emotional distress, inconvenience and hardship, as well as disruption and loss she said had been caused by her denied travel plans.
The council initially agreed to pay 10% of the amount she requested and later increased its offer. Neither the amount Miss X requested nor the council’s offers were revealed in the published decision.
The Ombudsman said: “Once a Council has accepted a complaint under the statutory procedure, the complainant has a right to pursue it through all three stages.”
It asked Ealing Council to hold the final review and complete the complaints process without delay.
The council also agreed to make what the Ombudsman described as an “additional symbolic payment” to Miss X for the stress and uncertainty caused by refusing her request for a final review, as well as provide guidance and training to relevant staff.
The amount of the payment was not revealed in the published decision and, when EALING.NEWS approached the Ombudsman for further details, no additional information about the amount was provided.
The published decision also does not give dates for Miss X’s placement or the different stages of her complaint.
The Ombudsman told EALING.NEWS that the decision contained fewer details than some of its other published cases because its investigation focused on Ealing Council’s handling of the statutory children’s complaints process rather than the underlying issues which led Miss X to complain.
An Ealing Council spokesperson told EALING.NEWS: “We accept the Ombudsman’s findings and are sorry that we did not respond appropriately to concerns raised about this placement.
“We had upheld the complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process, apologised to the complainant and agreed service improvements.
“We have taken on board the lessons from this case and have acted to strengthen our practice.”
