The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of herself and her granddaughter that failings by the Council affected their contact with another granddaughter/sibling. While there is evidence of fault in terms of delays, missing meeting records and poor complaint handling, there is nothing to suggest these failings resulted in reduced family contact.
The complaint
Mrs X, on behalf of herself and her granddaughter, Ms Z, complained that failings by the Council in respect of a contact arrangement meant child Q, was kept away from her sister and grandmother. Mrs X particularly complains of delays, loss of meeting records, continual changes of social worker and a data breach when the Council sent information about Ms Z to her mother.
Mrs X says both she and Ms Z have experienced distress and their relationship with Q has been impacted.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with the complainant; sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.
What I found
Mrs X is the grandmother of Ms Z, who is now a young adult. Mrs X had a residency order for Ms Z and so she grew up in Mrs X’s household. For about nine months, Mrs X was also looking after a younger sibling, Q, while care proceedings for Q were ongoing.
In August 2019 Q was living with foster parents. The foster parent reported to the social worker an incident that occurred when Ms Z was visiting Q. Q reported an incident of intimate contact, possibly of a sexual nature, by Ms Z.
A social worker met with Ms Z and Mrs X on 27 August to discuss the disclosure made by Q. The case notes indicate the Council was clear it was not making allegations against Ms Z but that it wanted to discuss the issues and get her perspective. On 15 September the Council sent Mrs X an email saying it had approached other professionals involved with Q and considered this to be an isolated incident. It said it would not be progressing any investigation.
A child protection strategy meeting was held on 15 October 2019. It decided the threshold for a section 47 investigation had not been met as Q was safe at the foster carers but concerns were raised about any unsupervised contact. It determined that it would suspend all unsupervised contact pending a contact assessment. The record of the strategy meeting states the contact assessment should be completed by 12 November 2019.
The Police decided not to interview Q straight away and would follow “Achieving Best Evidence” (ABE) guidance when it did. The Police conducted an ABE interview with Q in February 2020. It was noted Q did repeat the allegations against Ms Z but was unable to give further details. Case notes indicate that the case was unlikely to proceed to prosecution.
Information provided by the Council shows it carried out regular visits to Q at the foster carers house throughout 2020. The notes of the meetings record that Q regularly and consistently repeated the disclosure about Ms Z. It also noted the impact on Q’s behaviour and how it was different after contact visits and phone calls with Mrs X and Ms Z.
The contact risk assessment was completed on 18 December 2020. It concluded that contact with Mr and Mrs X and Ms Z should take place four times per year for a period of two hours and that Ms Z should not be left alone with Q at any time and required full supervision to ensure Q’s safety. There would also be monthly telephone contact when no face to face contact took place. It also said that telephone calls could replace face to face contact if needed due to new lockdown measures. The contact was to take place in the local community at a family friendly venue and would initially be supervised by social workers or support staff. It said that a risk assessment and safety plan would be written with the carers, Mrs X and Ms Z to that everyone was clear about the boundaries and to make this contact time positive for Q.
The case notes provided by the Council in response to my enquiries show that in December 2020 the social worker contacted the police asking for an update. She asked if there were any plans for another ABE interview or if there were any services that would support Q to understand the situation when no-one was being charged. There is nothing to show what response was received, if any, from the police. However, in December 2020 Ms Z attended a voluntary police interview. No further action was taken against Ms Z by the police.
Mrs X began to make complaints to the Council about what she said were unfounded allegations about Ms Z and the lack of unsupervised contact with Q. She complained the situation had been dragging on for two years and had caused distress to herself and Ms Z.
Mrs X says that in 2021 she had several meetings with senior social care officers. She says that at a meeting with Officer A, Interim Director of Children’s Services, she was told she would have a definite decision by 23 August. Mrs X says no decision was provided and Officer A left the Council. She said she approached Officer B, Interim Assistant Director who had been working with Officer A and met with him on 30 November 2021. Mrs X says that she left this meeting believing that all the Council needed to reinstate unsupervised contact between Q and the family, including Ms Z, was for an enhanced DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) check to be provided. She says the Council agreed to pay for these.
Mrs X emailed the Council in December chasing up the DBS checks. Officer C, Interim Head of Service for Care Experience Children and Young People , responded to Mrs X saying that while she was not aware of the context of the discussions with the Interim Director, there were processes to follow when considering changes to family time contact arrangements. She explained the Council did not solely rely on DBS or police checks and the decision on whether contact meetings with Q could be unsupervised would depend on the outcome of a contact assessment that was being completed by Q’s social worker.
Mrs X says that no notes of the meetings with Officer A and Officer B can be provided by the Council.
A review of the family time contact was completed on 21 December 2021. This noted the difficulties Q was experiencing as a result of some of the contact as well as deciding that as Ms Z was now aged 18, she would not be included in this family time contact. It was decided to suspend the telephone contact but to continue with supervised visits four times a year with Mr and Mrs X. Mrs X says that it took the Council over six months to complete the DBS check on Ms Z and that she no longer has any contact with Q.
The Council, responded to Mrs X’s complaint in March 2022. The Council explained it had been through a significant period of change over the past 18 months resulting in many changes to senior management, leadership and front line teams. It apologised for the changes and the impact on her family due to the number of social workers and managers involved and acknowledged the challenges this caused.
The Council said the family assessment originally completed in 2019 was closed and that following work carried out together in Winter 2021 a further family assessment was completed in January 2022. It apologised if Mrs X felt the Council had not involved her in this process.
The Council accepted that notes of several meetings had not been logged onto the system and that the officers involved had now left the Council. This included notes of the meetings with the Interim Directors. It apologised and said this was unacceptable and against its usual standards. It said it would be making improvements to ensure notes were made for all meetings and uploaded to the computer system. It also acknowledged that Officer A was due to complete the response to Mrs X’s complaint by the end of August 2021 but she did not do this before she left the Council in September 2021.
The Council’s response detailed the many changes to the senior management of the Council and children’s services and said as a result of these changes there had been no effective handling of Mrs X’s complaints. It accepted errors in the handling of Mrs X’s complaint and that it had failed to keep her informed.
Dissatisfied Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
Analysis Mrs X complains on behalf of herself and her granddaughter, Ms Z. She complains that failings by the Council in respect of a contact arrangement meant they did not see Q, their granddaughter/sister.
The information provided shows that Q had been living with Mrs X and Ms Z at one time but that she was living with foster parents and in the care of the Local Authority when the matters complained of occurred. Q disclosed to her foster parent an incident of intimate contact, possibly of a sexual nature, by Ms Z. The Council had a duty to investigate this and take action to ensure the safety of Q.
The information provided shows the Council conducted a strategy meeting within about six weeks after the disclosure was made. As Q was a looked after child, it was satisfied she was safe but it had concerns about contact with Mrs X and Ms Z.
The information provided to me indicates a contact assessment was due to be carried out by 12 November 2019. I have not seen any documents to show that this happened. In response to my enquiries the Council has provided a document dated 18 December 2020. I have not seen anything detailing the Council’s consideration of contact arrangements with an earlier date though I note in the Council’s complaint response it says the contact assessment was completed in 2019 and then reviewed in December 2021.
I consider there has been avoidable delay in this case. An assessment of contact arrangements should have been completed quickly after the strategy meeting in November 2019 but no written assessment was provided until December 2020. There is nothing to suggest information was shared with Mrs X and Ms Z about what the contact arrangements would be going forward. This is fault.
I accept that lockdowns and social distancing restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic will have impacted on any meetings with Q. However, these were not in place until March 2020 and so there was sufficient time for the Council to complete the assessment before restrictions started. During 2020 there was contact with Q by telephone and face to face meetings took place in May and September 2021.
I can understand why Mrs X and Ms Z are upset that their contact with Q was reduced. However, the Council’s focus had to be on the safety and well being of Q and not the wishes of family members. I note the review in December 2021 did not make significant changes to the contact with Q and Mrs X. However, Ms Z was not to be included in these meetings.
So while there was fault due to the delay in completing the initial assessment, I am not persuaded this resulted in any significant injustice. I am satisfied that while delayed, the contact assessment was thorough, considered the correct issues and rightly focussed on Q. While Mrs X and Ms Z may consider there is no reason to restrict their contact with Q and may prefer it to be unsupervised, the Council has used its professional judgement and made a decision. There is no basis for me to criticise the decisions made.
Mrs X also raised concerns about the loss of meeting records, changes of social worker and a data breach. The Council accepts that records of many meetings have not been uploaded to its computer system. This is fault. I can understand how frustrating this has been for Mrs X. She says that at a meeting in November 2021, Officer B confirmed that after DBS checks, unsupervised contact could resume. I note there were email exchanges between Mrs X and the Council on this point at the time and I consider these clarified the Council’s position. So while I cannot know with certainty what happened at the meeting between Mrs X and Officer B, and while the lack of a record of the meeting is fault, I am not persuaded this caused a significant enough injustice to warrant any further action or remedy. Even if Officer B gave wrong information to Mrs X at their meeting, the email exchanges provided clarification and set out how the Council would review the contact arrangements. The decision not to change the arrangements, as explained above, is a matter of professional judgement.
The information provided shows that further records of meetings are not available but I am not persuaded this would have altered the outcome of this case in any significant way.
Mrs X also complains about the many changes of social worker. I note that for the period of time this complaint concerns there were changes of social worker. However, this was Q’s social worker not Mrs X or Ms Z’s. Mrs X did not have any parental responsibility for Q and while I know she wants to maintain a strong family relationship with Q, this was not the main focus for the social worker. I am therefore not persuaded the changes of social worker resulted in any significant injustice to Mrs X or Ms Z.
Mrs X also complained about a possible data breach regarding information sent to Q’s mother which she then shared with Mrs X. Mrs X says this gave details of the nature of Q’s disclosure to Q’s mother (who is also Ms Z’s mother) and this caused conflict between Ms Z and her mother.
In response to my enquiries the Council says it has no record to show whether the information was sent to Q’s mother either in error or routinely. It says it has reviewed the content of the document and that some of the content should have been redacted, particularly to remove third party data. However, it states that Q’s mother still has parental responsibility and so is entitled to information about Q.
On balance, I take the view that there is fault in respect of this issue. The Council has no record to show when or why the information was sent to Q’s mother but the fact that Mrs X was able to share a copy with me, clearly shows it was sent. I note what Mrs X says about how this affected the relationship between Ms Z and her mother but I cannot say it was this alone that caused difficulties. I note there are some complicated family dynamics already and information about Q’s disclosure would need to be shared with her mother.
The Council’s failings in terms of the lack of records and how it dealt with Mrs X’s complaints are fault that caused Mrs X frustration and a remedy should be provided.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X as a result of the failings in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action: Provide a further apology of the faults identified in this case; and Make Mrs X a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise her frustration and time and trouble in pursuing this complaint.
In response to my enquiries the Council provided details of the actions it is taking to improve its performance and ensure similar problems do not occur again. This includes: A strategy to recruit permanently to posts that are currently occupied by agency workers; Ensuring caseloads are at appropriate levels; Introduction of a comprehensive standards handbook with information on good practice, timescales for completion of assessments and data recording; Twice weekly meetings between managers and their teams to support performance and practice; monthly service away days for practitioners to learn about good practice; regular supervision for all officers providing case direction and support to complete work in time and keep records up to date; auditing of cases by an independent auditor on a regular basis; and the introduction of practice leads to give direct support to team managers and social workers to improve practice standards.
As a result I am not making any recommendations for service improvements as I consider the Council is already taking appropriate steps.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman