Council criticised by Ombudsman for failing to complete all recommendations as agreed in statutory complaint process

In the case, the Ombudsman found no fault in how the council completed the statutory complaint procedure, but found it did not complete all recommendations as agreed, including that it would respond in writing to the man’s request about his plan for future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.

The man behind the complaint, Mr X, complained that the council failed to recognise his immigration status when he was a looked after child and failed to renew his visa before it expired.

He said this meant he overstayed his visa and was unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain for some years.

Mr X complained to the council. The council considered the complaint through the statutory complaints process and issued its response in late 2023.

However, Mr X was not happy with the stage one response and asked the council to escalate his complaint to stage two.

The stage two investigation found the council had not properly recorded Mr X’s immigration status when he became a looked after child. Consequently, the council did not realise Mr X’s visa had expired. It then applied to renew Mr X’s visa, but the process was protracted.

The council issued the stage two response in July 2024. The investigation upheld all but one of Mr X’s complaints which it partially upheld. The council offered to pay Mr X £100 for the delays. It also offered £2,000 for Mr X’s distress and worry.

Mr X asked the council to escalate his complaint to stage three. The panel upheld all Mr X’s complaints and made recommendations to the council. These included recommendations to improve its record keeping, training on immigration protocols and a process to identify expiring visas.

The recommendations also included the council exploring what it could fund for Mr X’s education, living expenses and accommodation. It included exploring an application for full legal status and a plan for his future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.

The council sent its stage three adjudication letter in September 2024. The council agreed to the panel recommendations.

The council paid Mr X £100 for the delays. It then agreed to meet the costs of therapy for Mr X up to £2,000. The council asked Mr X for invoices from the therapy provider to make the payments.

The council confirmed it would respond, in writing, to Mr X’s request about his plan for future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.

However, Mr X was not satisfied with the council’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Analysing the case, the Ombudsman said: “There was no fault in how the council completed the statutory complaint procedure. I recognise this situation has been distressing for Mr X, but the decisions were taken without fault.

“I have therefore reviewed the council's recommendations and remedies considering the fault found.”

The Ombudsman noted that the council made nine recommendations following the complaint process. Three related to individual remedies. These were:

• the council would explore what elements it could fund for Mr X regarding his education, living expenses, accommodation and application to secure his full legal status.
• the council would respond to Mr X’s request in writing detailing his plan for the future regarding his access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.
• the council should consider an apology.

The Ombudsman said: “From these recommendations, the council offered Mr X £2,000 and confirmed it would respond, in writing, to Mr X’s request about his plan for future access to health care, education, benefits and bursaries.

“The council has not provided evidence to show it has written to Mr X about these matters as it agreed it would. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.”

The Ombudsman added: “The council also said it would only cover therapy costs totalling the £2,000 it offered when Mr X had provided invoices. This was not in the original recommendation. The council only said Mr X needed an invoice after the complaint process. This is fault.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the council, within four weeks of its final decision:

• apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by not completing the recommendations for the statutory complaint procedure;
• pay Mr X the £2,000 it agreed to in the statutory complaint process;
• pay Mr X £200 as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble he has spent pursuing the complaint;
• provide the written response it agreed to in the statutory complaint response;
• remind relevant staff to complete the actions from complaints within a reasonable timescale.

A Middlesbrough Council spokesperson said: “We fully accept the Ombudsman’s findings and action has been taken to address them in full, including an apology to the complainant for the injustice caused to him.

“In addition, staff within Middlesbrough Children’s Care have undertaken specialist training in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.”

Lottie Winson