The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on his concerns about his daughter’s welfare, carried out a flawed assessment, and failed to respond to his complaint according to its procedures. As a result, Mr X says the Council failed to safeguard his daughter. We found some fault by the Council regarding this matter and the Council agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to act on his concerns about his daughter’s welfare while she was living with his ex-partner. He says the Council carried out a flawed social worker’s assessment, and when he complained about this, failed to respond to him according to its complaints procedure. Mr X says the Council failed to safeguard his daughter and he would like the Council to take action against the officers involved with his case.
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) 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
I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
I have also considered the Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018’.
Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation and guidance Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47) Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in: no further action; a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
Working Together to Safeguard Children The statutory guidance says, “Within one working day of a referral being received, a local authority social worker should acknowledge receipt to the referrer and make a decision about next steps and the type of response required. This will include determining whether: to see the child as soon as possible if the decision is taken that the referral requires further assessment.
The guidance also says: “The maximum timeframe for the assessment to conclude, such that it is possible to reach a decision on next steps, should be no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral. If, in discussion with a child and their family and other practitioners, an assessment exceeds 45 working days, the social worker should record the reasons for exceeding the time limit”.
The Council’s complaints policy The Council operates a two-stage complaints policy. At stage one, the policy says the Council should acknowledge complaints within three working days and send a full written reply within 15 working days. At stage two, the policy says the Council should acknowledge the request within three working days and send a full written response within 20 working days.
What happened This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
Mr X is separated from his ex-partner, Ms Y, with whom he has a daughter, Child A. Child A lives with Ms Y. Mr X and Ms Y are in the process of obtaining a decision regarding access to, and custody of Child A, via the courts.
Mr X has another child from a previous relationship, Child B.
In June 2021, Mr X contacted a third-party local authority, Authority Z to report concerns about the welfare of Child A.
On 16 June 2021, Authority Z referred Mr X’s concerns to the Council because Ms Y and Child A were living in its area. The referral said Mr X was concerned because he said Ms Y had been going to her friend’s house with Child A, where the friend’s partner was a drug addict. Mr X also said Ms Y had been aggressive towards Child B, causing distress to them and Child A. Mr X said Ms Y had also caused emotional abuse to the children because they were separated and did not see each other. Mr X said Ms Y had mental health issues and was staying in different places with Child A.
On 22 June 2021, the Council started its investigation regarding Mr X’s concerns.
On 24 June 2021, the Council called Mr X to discuss his concerns. Mr X provided details about why he considered Ms Y had been abusive towards him and Child B, and said he considered Ms Y was incapable of looking after Child A. Mr X said Ms Y had mental health issues and said she had coerced him into having a child with her. He said Ms Y kept company with her friend whose partner was a drug addict and said members of Ms Y’s family sold drugs. Mr X said he believed Ms Y was carrying out child abuse by not allowing contact between Child A and himself and Child B.
On 25 June 2021, the Council decided to carry out a Child and Family Assessment to determine any immediate safeguarding concerns.
At about this time, the Council made enquiries with several third-party bodies regarding the concerns raised by Mr X.
On 9 July 2021, the Council called Mr X. Mr X repeated his concerns, including the company kept by Ms Y, her family, and her mental health issues. He said he was a victim of emotional abuse and coercion and said the Council should carry out a mental health assessment of Ms Y. Mr X said he was concerned about Ms Y’s ability to care for Child A and said he was seeking legal advice to help him deal with the ongoing arrangements regarding his contact with Child A.
What happened next The Council emailed Mr X on 12 July 2021 and provided Mr X with a copy of its summary of the telephone call from 9 July 2021.
Mr X replied on the same day and said he disagreed with the Council’s summary. He said he recorded calls made to him and provided an amended copy of the summary which he said was a transcript and an accurate record of the conversation. Mr X said the Council had got its summary wrong and had changed what was discussed. He asked the Council to amend its records to reflect the amended summary he provided.
The Council replied to Mr X the next day and said it did not agree with many of the points he raised. It said it considered Mr X had taken parts of the conversation out of context.
Mr X emailed the Council and said its records should not change what they had discussed on 9 July 2021. He repeated his concerns about Ms Y’s friend and family, and her mental health, and said Ms Y was preventing Child A from having a relationship with himself and Child B.
The Council replied to Mr X on the same day. It said mental health assessments are generally considered when councils have acute concerns about a parent’s mental health. The Council said it did not consider this measure necessary in this case.
Mr X replied and said the Council had ignored his request to amend the notes from the telephone call. He said the Council could not use the notes it had sent him as part of its assessment because they were not accurate.
Mr X’s complaint Mr X complained to the Council on 16 July 2021. He repeated his concerns about the welfare of Child A and complained the Council had not taken the matter seriously. Mr X said the Council had delayed carrying out an assessment due to Ms Y’s repeated address changes. He complained the Council’s assessment was not valid because the Council had allowed time for Ms Y to prepare for the social worker’s visit. Mr X said Ms Y had admitted to some of the concerns he had raised and complained the Council had not worked with the Police to remove Child A from her care. Mr X said the Council had delayed creating and carrying out a plan to address his concerns and said the social worker’s notes from the telephone call on 9 July 2021 had changed major details of the discussion. Mr X complained the Council had not followed the requirements of legislation and statutory guidance regarding its duty to make enquiries regarding children potentially at risk.
The Council contacted Mr X on 23 July 2021 to request his doctor’s contact details as part of its ongoing enquiries.
Mr X declined to provide the social worker with the information requested and said the social worker should not contact him due to the outstanding complaint. On 2 August 2021, Mr X asked the Council to re-allocate the case to another social worker.
On 12 August 2021, the Council told Mr X the social worker would remain dealing with the case. It said it welcomed Mr X’s input and views towards the assessment and offered to arrange a meeting so his views could be included.
Mr X emailed the Council on 16 August 2021 to chase a response to his complaint.
On 17 August 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X and told him it had completed its assessment and closed the case. It said it had discussed the concerns with Ms Y and Mr X as part of its assessment but said Mr X had disengaged and requested a new social worker. The Council said it considered Children’s Services did not need to be involved as it identified no concerns regarding Ms Y’s care of Child A. The Council said the concerns regarding drug misuse appeared to be historical and were therefore unsubstantiated and that health checks highlighted no concerns regarding Child A’s health needs. The Council also said it had identified no concerns about Ms Y’s mental health and provided Mr X with a copy of its assessment.
Mr X replied on 18 August 2021 and said he considered the Council’s assessment was not valid and did not mention all the concerns raised. He said he was happy to engage with social services but not with a social worker who he considered had falsified information which did not reflect the conversation which took place. Mr X said he had asked the social worker to correct the notes, but they had refused. He said the Council’s claim it identified no concerns was false because he said Ms Y had admitted to some safety concerns. He said the Council had refused to see evidence to support his concerns. Mr X disputed the content of the assessment and said the Council had presented a false narrative and a biased view.
On 19 August 2021, Mr X asked the Council when he would receive a response to his complaint. The Council replied the next day and said it would respond during the following week.
On 23 August 2021, Mr X complained to the Council and said its assessment was biased and contained a false narrative. Mr X provided information in support of his complaint and provided further information to the Council on 5 September 2021.
The Council provided its complaint response to Mr X on 8 September 2021. It apologised for the time taken and said its response addressed the complaints made against the social worker and the service. The Council said it could not address some of the points raised by Mr X because they related to third parties, and it was unable to disclose or discuss these matters due to data protection. The Council said it was unable to find any evidence of falsified information in its records.
The Council said its social workers are professionally trained and qualified to take the work of children’s safeguarding very seriously. It said each case is assessed on its own merits and the known risks and considerations of the child. The Council said it carried out an assessment to explore the risks and allegations and carried out relevant checks with partner agencies and other local authorities. It said a manager oversaw the case and that its investigation was in line with professional and procedural expectations.
On 16 September 2021, Mr X told the Council he was dissatisfied with the complaint response. He said the Council had failed to address his complaints and had not responded in time. He said the social worker had broken policies and professional standards and the Council had failed to keep its assessment child focussed.
What happened next On 5 October 2021, Mr X provided the Council with additional information relating to his conversations and correspondence with Ms Y.
On 7 October 2021, the Council received a referral from a third-party organisation regarding Mr X’s concerns about Ms Y and Child A’s nursery. The concerns about Ms Y reflected the previous concerns investigated by the Council. The Council called Mr X on the same day to discuss the matter with him.
On 18 October 2021, the Council decided to write to Mr X to tell him it was taking no further action regarding the referral received on 7 October 2021. Mr X says he did not receive any correspondence from the Council regarding this.
On 24 November 2021, Mr X asked the Council for an explanation as to why he had not received a stage two response.
The Council replied on 26 November 2021 and said the service had some unforeseen staffing shortages and this had impacted on its timeliness. The Council said it aimed to provide a response by 3 December 2021.
Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complaint handling and brought his complaint to us. He says he has not received the Council’s stage two response.
Analysis – the Council’s actions following receipt of the referral I have reviewed the information provided by Mr X and by the Council. In this report I have not referenced every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
Mr X complains the Council failed to act on his concerns about Child A’s welfare. Having reviewed the information provided, I am satisfied the Council made initial enquiries of agencies involved with Child A and the family to assess the nature and level of any harm Child A may be facing. The Council also carried out an assessment. On this basis, I find the Council did take action regarding Mr X’s concerns about Child A’s welfare and therefore find no fault in this aspect of the complaint.
However, the evidence indicates delay at the initial stages of the referral. As per paragraph 14, statutory guidance says councils should acknowledge receipt and decide appropriate next steps within one working day of receiving the referral.
The Council received the referral regarding Mr X’s concerns on 16 June 2021 but did not decide to carry out an assessment until 28 June 2021. I acknowledge it contacted Mr X prior to this to discuss his concerns, but this was not until 24 June 2021. This is outside the one working day timeframe specified by the statutory guidance and is therefore fault.
In addition, the statutory guidance says councils should see the child as soon as possible if the decision is taken that the referral requires further assessment. The Council decided on 28 June 2021 to carry out an assessment but did not visit Child A until 12 July 2021. This is 10 working days after the decision. This timeframe is evidence of delay by the Council which constitutes fault.
The Council’s assessment Mr X says the Council carried out a flawed assessment based on a false narrative obtained from inaccurate notes from the telephone call on 9 July 2021. Mr X says the assessment is biased against him and says the assessment is flawed because the social worker did not make the alterations he requested.
I have reviewed the Council’s notes regarding the telephone call on 9 July 2021. I have also reviewed Mr X’s notes regarding the same call. I acknowledge Mr X says his notes are a transcript of the call. These notes contain details of Mr X’s thoughts and feelings about his concerns and about what he would like to happen as a result of the Council’s assessment. Mr X’s notes also indicate the social worker agreed with him on certain points.
In their response to Mr X on 13 July 2021, the social worker stated they disagreed with many of the points contained in Mr X’s notes, and that they felt Mr X had taken many points out of context.
Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s record gives additional detail, including details of his thoughts, feelings and wishes, it does not provide a different narrative to the record made by the Council. This is because the Council’s record of the conversation addresses the same concerns as recorded in Mr X’s notes. The Council addressed these concerns as part of its assessment, and Mr X’s record does not provide an alternative narrative to the concerns investigated as part of the Council’s assessment.
I have reviewed the Council’s assessment and its record of the actions it took as part of the assessment process. As the information provided by the Council relates to third parties, I am unable to provide details of the information reviewed, or of the checks and actions carried out by the Council, as this would be contrary to data protection.
Having reviewed the information provided, the evidence shows the Council considered the information provided to it from all parties concerned. As stated at paragraph three, if there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the outcome. As a result, I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions regarding this matter.
I acknowledge Mr X strongly disagrees with the outcome of the assessment. However, the Council exercised its professional judgement in carrying out the assessment, and although Mr X disagrees with its decision, this is not evidence of fault.
The Council’s complaint handling Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint in line with its procedures and has not provided a final response.
Mr X made his initial complaint on 16 July 2021 and made a further complaint on 23 August 2021. The Council provided a single response on 8 September 2021.
I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council issuing a single response to his complaints and says it should have provided separate responses instead. The Council is not at fault regarding this matter as its policy does not specify it will send individual responses to separate outstanding complaints.
However, the Council is at fault for the delays incurred in its handling of Mr X’s complaints as the evidence shows it did not respond to the initial complaint within 15 working days. In addition, I have seen no evidence the Council has provided Mr X with a stage two response. The delays incurred at stage one and the failure to provide a stage two response is evidence the Council did not adhere to its complaints policy. This is fault.
The fault identified caused an injustice to Mr X, namely the frustration and distress caused by the delay in the initial action taken by the Council, and in its failure to adhere to its complaints policy. This fault also led to avoidable time and trouble taken by Mr X bringing his complaint to us in the absence of a final response.
In its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged Mr X faced an unreasonable and unacceptable delay regarding its complaint handling. As a result, it offered to make a payment of £200 to Mr X as a remedy for the delay. Whilst it is positive the Council recognises the delays in its complaint handling, I do not consider the Council’s offer adequately addresses the fault identified.
Agreed action
To address the injustice arising from the fault identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision: Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified; Provide Mr X with its final complaint response; Make a payment of £250 to Mr X in recognition of the frustration and distress caused; Make a further payment of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble taken by Mr X in pursuing his complaint; Remind staff to adhere to the statutory timescales regarding referrals to children’s social care services, and Remind staff to adhere to the Council’s complaints policy.
The Council is required to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman