The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about failings in the support she and her children received from children’s services. The failings in the support provided to Miss X and her children while the children were subject to child protection plans amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X and her children an injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complained about failings in the support she and her children received from children’s services. In particular Miss X complained: Repeated changes in her son’s social worker meant they were unable to build up a relationship with him and consequently could not complete work specified in his Child Protection plan; The Council withdrew a Family Support Worker who had been supporting Miss X without any discussion or agreement; Miss X’s son remained on a Child Protection plan longer than necessary due to delays by social workers in completing tasks; The Council did not complete child protection visits in accordance with safeguarding procedures; Miss X’s sons’ fathers and school were not always invited to Core Group meetings; The Council routinely failed to send Miss X minutes of Core Group meetings; During a Core Group meeting in January 2020 a social worker left Miss X’s son alone in the care his father. The social worker subsequently told Miss X her son’s father was drunk.
The Council delayed in completing a section 7 report for the court, which resulted in the hearing being delayed.
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) The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we considers that investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
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) Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with Miss X; Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Key facts Miss X’s children were made subject to Child Protection plans in the summer of 2019. Although Miss X’s youngest son, Z’s Child protection plan ended in October 2020, her eldest son, Y remained subject to a Child Protection plan until February 2021, when he became a Child in Need. During this period the children had five social workers.
Miss X was unhappy with the support she received and initially made a complaint in June 2020. The Council declined to investigate Miss X’s concerns under its complaints process. We have previously investigated a complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate Miss X’s complaint and the Council agreed to consider Miss X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
The Council has now completed all three stages of the statutory complaints process. The stage two investigation upheld complaints 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 set out in paragraph 1 above and partially upheld complaint 4. It made no finding in relation to complaint 7 as there was no record of the meeting or evidence of the event on the Council’s file. It also made no finding in relation to complaint 8 as there was a lack of clarity around when the report had to be filed at court.
The investigating officer made recommendations for service improvements and supported Miss X’s desired outcomes. They suggested a senior officer apologise to Miss X for the failings in the service and that Miss X should be offered the opportunity to meet with the Assistant Director of Children’s Services to discuss the failings identified.
The stage 3 panel considered complaint 4 should be fully rather than partially upheld but supported the decision of no finding in relation to complaints 7 and 8.
While Miss X accepts that complaint 8 is a matter for the court, she believes complaint 7 should be upheld. Miss X asserts this was a significant issue as the Council required Miss X to protect her children from Z’s father’s drinking and he was only allowed supervised contact with Z. Yet the social worker left Z with his father unsupervised while he was drunk.
Miss X has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She questions why the Council did not contact the health visitor who was present at the meeting for their account. In addition, Miss X does not consider the Council’s apology was genuine and would still like a meeting with the Assistant Director to discuss the failings in support. This was postponed pending the Stage 3 panel’s decision but has not been offered again. Miss X also believes the Council should compensate herself and her children for the distress it caused.
As part of my investigation I have obtained a copy of the health visitor’s records of the core group meeting on 7 January 2020. The meeting was held in two parts. Miss X attended the first part and Z’s father attend the second. The notes record that Z’s father turned up during the first part and the social worker took Z out to him so that they could have contact. The social worker then arranged for Z’s father to go into another room while Miss X left with Z.
The health visitor’s records do not record that Z was left unsupervised with his father. They do however record that the social worker asked Z’s father whether he had been drinking as they could smell alcohol.
Analysis The Council made no finding in relation to complaint 7 as there was no reference the incident in the Council’s records and no record of a Core Group meeting in January in 2020. The stage two investigator noted the minutes of the core group meeting in February 2020 state that Miss X said Z’s father had turned up at the last core group meeting and the social worker took Z out to see him. But there are no other refences to the incident. The stage 3 panel acknowledged the investigation was hampered by the lack of detailed record keeping. In the absence of any evidence the Council could not make a finding.
There is no evidence the Council considered contacting the health visitor to confirm whether they attended a core meeting in January 2020, and if so, their recollection of events. Given the serious nature of Miss X’s complaint it is unclear why this was not considered. Particularly as the health visitor was still attending core group meetings when Miss X raised her concerns.
While the health visitor’s notes do not confirm Z was left unsupervised with his father, they do confirm a core group meeting took place and that the social worker allowed contact although they had concerns Z’s father had been drinking.
I consider the Council’s failure to maintain full and accurate records amounts to fault, as does the failure to attempt to contact the health visitor regarding the core group meeting in January 2020.
The Council has accepted the recommendations for service improvements made by the independent investigator and has apologised for the delay and failings in its service. This is to be welcomed, but I do not consider the apology to be an adequate remedy for the injustice these failings have caused Miss X.
Having upheld most of Miss X’s complaints I consider a financial remedy, in recognition of the impact the failings have had on Miss X and her family would be appropriate.
The Ombudsman considers payments for avoidable distress and anxiety are symbolic and he often recommends a modest sum between the range of £100 to £300. In this instance I consider a payment of £300 would be appropriate.
Agreed action
The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £300 in recognition of the distress and anxiety she experienced as a result of the failings in the Council's service.
The Council has also agreed to contact Miss X to offer a meeting between Miss X and the Assistant Director of Children’s services to discuss the failings in support.
The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.
Final decision
The failings in the support provided to Miss X and her children while they were subject to child protection plans amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X and her children an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman