Woman who faced 144 days of delay in Peterborough council's complaints process paid £150

A woman who faced long delays in having her complaints against a council processed has been paid £150.

The woman, referred to as Mrs X in a judgement published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), faced a cumulative delay of 144 working days as she progressed her complaint through Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) complaints process.

This caused “frustration and uncertainty”, the LGSCO said, as it ordered the council to pay the woman the “symbolic” compensation.

The ombudsman also found the council had failed to implement some of the recommendations it was issued at earlier stages of the complaints process before it was escalated to their organisation.

A PCC spokesperson said: “We accept the findings by the ombudsman, have carried out the actions required in their report and will recognise the learnings from this.

"We would also like to offer our apologies to the individuals involved for any distress caused.”

What happened when Mrs X complained?

Mrs X initially complained to PCC about how it had handled a change in its policy for adoption allowance and special guardianship allowance (SGA).

In early 2022 she was told she would no longer be paid adoption allowance for her adopted child and that SGA payments for her other child, who has disabilities and special educational needs, would be gradually reduced over four years.

Mrs X’s complaint wasn’t upheld, but the council agreed to consider issuing her an allowance by exemption and agreed her child with extra needs may benefit from a referral to its early help team.

She then escalated her complaint to the second stage of the process, where it’s looked at by an investigating officer and independent person.

They didn’t uphold her complaint either as the council’s method for determining allowances were in line with government guidance.

But the investigating officer did make some recommendations to the council, including telling it to provide training to children’s services staff to ensure they can clearly communicate allowable expenses to people coming into the service.

The council also agreed to pay a further allowance by exception to Mrs X for both of her children until her finances could be reviewed.

Mrs X added a complaint that she had been historically underpaid, which the investigating officer also didn’t uphold - but noted that some council records in relation to her case were unavailable.

Mrs X then escalated her complaints further, meaning they were reviewed by a panel, which also didn’t uphold them - but issued yet more recommendations, including telling the council it should include more information about SGA on its website.

She then contacted the LGSCO, which said the complaints process had been followed correctly, but that there were long delays and not all of the recommendations issued to PCC were followed, such as giving staff extra training.

It also didn’t send Mrs X a referral letter to the early help team after she first lodged her complaint due to a system error.

The LGSCO laid out the delays she faced at each stage of the complaints process in its judgement: for instance, stage two – when an investigating officer is appointed – should take a maximum of 65 working days, but took 81.

The panel, assembled at stage three, should have been appointed within 30 working days, but this took 74.

PCC says Mrs X will continue to receive allowance by exception until late March 2024 at which point it will conduct a new financial assessment.

Changes to its SGA policy and communication around this remain ongoing.