The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss C and Mr D complain about the Council’s handling of a children’s safeguarding referral and their subsequent complaint which they say caused unnecessary upset and damaged family relationships. The Council accepted fault and agreed several actions and offered £1,450. We found fault by the Council and it has agreed to an additional payment of £250 to each complainant and an offer of counselling which we are satisfied provides a suitable remedy.
The complaint
The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Miss C and Mr D, complain about the Council’s handling of a children’s safeguarding referral and their subsequent complaint.
Miss C says she suffered unnecessary upset and Mr D missed time with his daughter which damaged this relationship and his relationship with the family and caused him distress which affected his health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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
I read the papers provided by Miss C and discussed the complaint with both complainants. I have explained my draft decision to Miss C and Mr D and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.
Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I found
Background and legislation Child protection Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan. After the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.
The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to: further develop the child protection plan; facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and implement the child protection plan.
The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.
Statutory complaints procedure The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
Key events The Council received a referral about Miss C and her daughter at the end of January 2018. A Children and Families Assessment was completed and a Strategy Meeting decided to convene a Child Protection Conference in March. This placed Miss C’s daughter on a Child Protection Plan under the category physical abuse. A Core Group Meeting was held at the end of March.
Miss C went to stay with her mother at the end of March. Child protection statutory visits took place in April and a Core Group Meeting in early May. Miss C says a social worker made a serious allegation about Mr D in early May which was subsequently found to be false.
Miss C emailed a complaint to the Council about her concerns in June. The Council did not receive this complaint.
Further visits took place during July to September. There was not another Core Group Meeting until mid-September. The Child Protection Plan was transferred to a different Council where Miss C was living.
Miss C complained to the Council in June 2019 that she had not received a response to her June 2018 complaint about the Council’s handling of the safeguarding referral. The Council considered this under the statutory complaints’ procedure. In summary, Miss C complained: A Children and Families Assessment completed in March 2018 contained incorrect information and failed to properly record her views Following the Child Protection Plan she was wrongly told if she did not leave her property the Council would seek an Interim Care Order Child protection visits did not take place in line with required timescales There were no consistent social workers allocated and they provided inconsistent advice and failed to respond to contact Both she and her mother had to sign written agreements that her daughter would have no contact with Mr D but was then told the agreements could not be enforced Poor and late communication about Child Protection Conferences and no response to her request to hold them nearer to where she was living Lack of Core Group meetings A social worker made a serious allegation about Mr D which was false She did not receive housing help Lack of support The Council did not properly deal with her complaints in 2018 The Council appointed an Independent Investigator and Independent Person in July 2020 who produced reports in January 2021 about 18 separate complaints. These upheld 5 complaints, partially upheld 6, and found 4 not upheld and 3 inconclusive or made no finding. This reports recommended a number of actions including correcting information held, an apology and payment of £350 for the faults identified and £250 for Miss C’s time and trouble.
The matter was referred to the Council’s Stage 3 Review Panel. The Review Panel considered the reports and Miss C’s concerns and fully upheld 2 complaints which had been previously partially upheld and fully upheld 1 complaint that had previously been found inconclusive and changed 1 finding from not upheld to making no finding. The Review Panel considered additional evidence including a police report provided to the Council in March 2018 containing criminal history data and records that Mr D was told the serious allegation had been false in early June. It was noted this evidence would have been available during the Stage 2 investigation and this part of the complaint was reclassified as fully upheld.
The Panel recommended: A discussion take place with both Miss C and Mr D to itemize all the factually incorrect information held on the file and to provide confirmation to them when this had been corrected Miss C accept the previously provided apology An additional payment for Mr D’s loss of contact with his daughter Consideration of Miss C and Mr D’s requests about a written acknowledgement that the March 2018 allegation about Mr D was incorrect and additional compensation to recognise the impact on Mr D.
The Council wrote to Miss C and Mr D in November 2021 and accepted the above recommendations. The Council confirmed the allegation about Mr D attributed to the social worker was incorrect. The Council offered an additional payment to Mr D of £350 for the loss of contact with his daughter and £500 to recognise his distress.
Miss C complained to the Ombudsman as she did not consider the Council had offered a remedy which was enough to address the time Mr D had lost with his daughter or the impact on his heath.
My consideration My role is to decide if the Council properly considered the complaint and offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused. It is not to re-investigate the complaint but to identify any shortcomings in the investigation and the remedy offered. If I find the fault caused injustice, I must consider what the Council should do to rectify that injustice.
I have considered the detailed Stage 2 investigation report, the accompanying Independent Person’s report, Stage 2 Adjudication letter, the Review Panel’s findings and final Adjudication letter. I have also considered the Council’s responses to my enquiries. I am satisfied the Council carried out a detailed investigation although it has accepted delays in the process.
The Council has a legal duty to investigate allegations that a child is suffering or is at risk of significant harm. The primary responsibility is to safeguard the welfare of that child. Carrying out an investigation inevitably causes distress to those involved. In recommending a remedy we will consider avoidable distress caused. We may also ask councils to note what a complainant says about errors in reports, so the file makes clear the complainant disputes the information. Where a family has been separated for longer than necessary, we may consider recommending the Council arranges counselling to help the family rebuild.
As set out in our ‘Guidance on Remedies’ our aim is to put a complainant in a position they would have been but for the fault. When this is not possible, as in this case, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge avoidable distress or hurt.
Following the recommendations from the stage 2 investigation the Council offered Miss C a total of £600 compensation, the breakdown was £350 for the deficiencies identified through its investigation which included the lack of core group meetings and an additional £250 for time and trouble.
Following the recommendations of the stage 3 review panel hearing, the Council also offered Mr D a total of £850 compensation, the breakdown of which is £350 to Mr D in recognition of the loss of contact with his daughter as set out by Miss C in her complaint for a period of 10 weeks and £500 in recognition of the distress Mr D experienced. In total the Council has offered Miss C and Mr D £1,450.
Although the Council has explained how it applied the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies and case precedents in reaching this amount, I did not consider its offer fully recognised the impact of the failings upheld by the Panel. During the course of my investigation the Council reviewed the remedy it had offered and agreed the actions below.
Agreed action
The Council will within six weeks of my final decision: complete any outstanding agreed actions from the Stage 3 Panel hearing; make a further and separate payment of £250 each to Miss C and Mr D in recognition of the delay in the complaint process; and offer 6 to 8 sessions of counselling as a remedy for the impact of Mr D’s loss of contact with his daughter which could be family counselling or individual counselling to Mr D or a combination depending on the advice of the counsellor.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed actions above provide a suitable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman