Summary
Mr C complained about social work's involvement with him, after his stepchild was referred to the social work department. Mr C complained that the partnership did not provide him with reasonable support as no parental course was offered to him and he was not shown the child plan for his stepchild. Mr C also complained that the partnership's complaints handling was unreasonable as his concerns were not fully addressed.
We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was evidence that that social worker attempted to arrange parental work with Mr C. We found that it was reasonable Mr C was not shown the child's plan, as he was no longer in the family home when it was prepared and he did not have parental rights and responsibilities for his stepchild. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.
In relation to complaints handling, we found that the partnership did not accurately identify all of Mr C's concerns and provide a reasonable response to them. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr C for not accurately identifying and providing an appropriate response to all aspects of his complaint, and provide Mr C with a full response to the concerns raised. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: Complaint responses should accurately identify and provide a reasonable response to all the issues of concern.
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201703760 as a PDF (23.8 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018