The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council published confidential financial information in an assessment for her son’s disability needs, which negatively affected services for him. The Council has already remedied the matter, but we found further fault by the Council in delaying direct payments and delay in dealing with Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed with our recommendations to remedy this.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, complained the Council disclosed confidential financial information in an assessment and Child in Need meeting relating to her disabled son (Y) which has led to the family being treated differently. She says they have been subjected to bullying and harassment, delayed payments and her son has missed out on services, which has caused them significant distress.
She also says the Council included inaccurate and misleading information in her son’s records and complains about the delay with the Council’s complaint process.
What I have investigated I have investigated the matters set out above. At the end of the decision, I have set out why I have not investigated other matters.
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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
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
Legal and administrative background Child in Need Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils with social services functions have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. A child with a disability is considered to be a child in need.
When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.
The Council’s procedures for assessing disabled children The Council has its own procedures governing how disabled children and their families should be assessed.
The local guidance sets out that all children meeting the threshold for this service will receive a Child & Family assessment to consider their needs for a service. The assessment should specifically consider the impact of the disability on the child’s daily living and additional assessments from the Occupational Therapy service or sensory impairment service can also be requested.
The local guidance explains the possible services available which include short breaks, services using direct payments, support in the home, and the provision of information about activities and other support organisations. Once the provisions to be provided as identified these should be incorporated into a Child In Need Plan.
Direct Payments Parents/carers of disabled children can ask for a direct payment (DP) to meet the needs of the child. The council must carry out an assessment and DPs must be sufficient to meet the assessed needs. DPs must be used by the parent/carer to meet the child’s needs. DPs do not affect any benefit entitlement.
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.
The Ombudsman’s approach 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.
What happened In October 2020, Y’s allocated social worker completed a Child and Family (C&F) assessment which included confidential financial information.
The assessment recommended an increased care package from the previous one in 2018, taking into account Y’s needs and support for Miss X; it did not mention Y’s finances in reaching this conclusion.
A request later went to Panel for increased funding to meet the cost of Miss X’s preferred provider of care. It was initially rejected as more information was required about what the agency was able to offer and how this proposed support would meet Y’s needs. These issues were resolved with agreement being reached in July 2021.
Miss X stated the financial information had also been openly discussed by the social worker at a Child in Need meeting held in September 2020. The notes of the meeting do not refer to the financial information as a consideration in assessing Y's needs.
From formal correspondence seen, Miss X made complaints in October and December 2020 to the Council stating the disclosure was in breach of a High Court order and the paragraph referencing this should be removed. She wanted an explanation as to why the disclosure had happened.
Within the complaints, Miss X raised other concerns about: the C&F assessment being unbalanced, meaning Y had been put at risk; the date given by the social worker of a police referral relating to historical concerns within the Child in Need meeting, which in her view was falsified to look like a new allegation; and the delay in receiving social care direct payments for Y.
The complaints were considered under the Children’s Act 1989 statutory three stage complaints procedure. The Council sent a Stage One response in January 2021 and Miss X escalated to Stage Two in January 2021.
The Council’s Stage Two response was sent to Miss X in January 2022. The review upheld the complaint about the financial disclosure; it apologised and removed references to this from all records on its system. An explanation for this disclosure could not be given to Miss X as it had been unable to interview the social worker.
In relation to Miss X’s other complaints above, the Stage Two review: acknowledged the assessment lacked critical information about Y’s social and domestic experiences involving his father and should have been clearer to enable a balanced assessment. It did not agree this caused a failure to safeguard Y as previous assessments had recorded the complexities of the family history which was known to the social worker – partially upheld. It stated a record of Miss X’s views would be saved to Y’s file so it would show her perspective.
determined the social worker gave the correct date of the police referral in August 2020 who had made it clear it was relating to historical domestic concerns from 2017. It stated the social worker had acted appropriately by raising this at the meeting – not upheld.
accepted the Council had failed to progress a referral to the direct payments provider in a timely manner; the assessment was in October 2020 and it did not send it until March 2021 – upheld. The payments were processed in July 2021 and included a backdated payment to October 2020.
The Stage Three Independent Panel agreed with these findings in March 2022 and did not recommend any further remedy.
The Council offered £300 to Miss X for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint and the delays that had occurred in the process.
In April 2022, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman, adding she and Y have been treated differently because of the disclosure of the financial information at the time, which has affected services provided to Y. When I spoke to Miss X, she informed me the Council had sent her copies of letters forwarded to all attendees of the Child in Need meeting to ensure the confidential information was not disclosed further.
In responding to my enquiries, the Council said it could not get an explanation for the disclosure from the social worker because they had not worked for the Council since August 2021 and it would not be appropriate to contact them about this.
Analysis Financial information and its effect The Council accepted it should not have published confidential financial information within the C&F assessment, apologised, and removed it from all records. I do not consider any further remedy is necessary.
In a comment to my draft decision, Miss X said the Council has had contact with the social worker since August 2021 via a virtual meeting; I have seen this referenced in correspondence from the Council, but it is not clear in what professional capacity this was. Whilst I recognise Miss X wants to understand why the disclosure happened, I do not consider pursuing an explanation to be proportionate and the matter has been remedied.
Miss X stated she and Y have been bullied and harassed by Council employees due to the disclosure. I acknowledge this concern, and Miss X has sent me a copy of her complaint to the Council about this, but I have not seen evidence to support this allegation and so I am unable to reach a view on this.
I have not seen any evidence to support Miss X’s view that the disclosure of financial information negatively affected the services provided to Y: the Council increased the care package without reference to Y’s finances and so I do not find fault here.
Police referral I am satisfied the Council’s Stage Two and Three review considered available relevant evidence and reasonably explained how it reached the conclusion that the social worker had not falsified the date of a police referral or made a deliberate attempt to make the concerns look like new information. I do not find fault by the Council.
Unbalanced assessment I am satisfied the Council’s Stage Two and Three review explored the concerns of this assessment and acknowledged Miss X’s views, and it provided rationale as to why it concluded there was no suggestion of risk to Y as a result. There was fault by the Council but no injustice.
Miss X has confirmed the Council has added her views to the records and she is satisfied with this. There is no need for a further remedy.
Delay in direct payments The Council did not refer Y’s case to the direct payments provider until March 2021, five months after the assessment took place. It has provided no explanation for this excessive delay.
I have noted further delay occurred between March and July 2021 due to Miss X exploring alternative providers and seeking additional funding through Panel. I do not consider this delay was due to fault by the Council.
Although the Council has since backdated the payments, Y missed out on care services during the five month delay.
Complaint handling The Council delayed excessively in completing its Stage Two investigation of Miss X’s complaint. She escalated the complaint in January 2021 and the Council did not respond until January 2022, a year later. This is a significant delay and far outside the 13 week time limit.
The Council apologised stating it was because it had received an unprecedented high volume of complaints which impacted on its ability to deal with them quickly. I acknowledge this may have been unavoidable and unintentional, however this is still fault as the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales and caused injustice to Miss X with additional frustration and distress.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to, within one month of the final decision: Provide Miss X with a further written apology for its delay; and Pay Miss X a total of £500 for her time and trouble, frustration and inconvenience and the loss of provision of five months for Y.
Final decision
I find the Council remedied matters where it could, but I find further fault in delays relating to direct payments and dealing with Miss X’s complaint, causing injustice to her and Y. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I did not investigate any further complaints Miss X has raised during the investigation of this complaint, including: complaints relating to Y’s Education, Health, and Care Plan, including delays and failure to deliver provisions and funding within it; and concerns the Council has failed to put in place recommended improvements from a previous Ombudsman decision dated October 2021.
These are recent complaints which, in Miss X’s view, stem from the fault of the financial disclosure leading to alleged negative behaviour towards her and Y, but I am unable to comment as it is reasonable to allow the Council the chance to investigate and respond to new matters through its complaint process first. If Miss X remains dissatisfied with the outcome of these, she can raise a new complaint to the Ombudsman.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman