Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her son who was going missing and being trafficked to sell drugs and did not place him on a Child Protection Plan until August 2018. The Council’s delay in taking intervention measures to safeguard Mr Y and the failings in its service to Miss X amount to fault. As does the delay in completing the complaint process. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her son who was going missing and being trafficked to sell drugs and did not place him on a Child Protection Plan until August 2018.
2. Miss X disputes the reasons given for placing her son on a Child Protection Plan in August 2018 and asserts the Council failed to properly consider or acknowledge that she was a victim of her son’s violence. Miss X complains the Council’s records and minutes are incomplete or inaccurate and that officers disregarded her views and failed to properly advise her or keep her informed.
3. In addition, Miss X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her complains and the length of time taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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.
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
7. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. 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.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

9. Miss X’s family have been known to the Council for many years. In March 2017 the Youth Offending Service (YOS) made a referral to Children’s Social Care (CSC) in relation to concerns Miss X’s son, Mr Y was involved in gang activity. Mr Y had regularly been going missing and Miss X reported feeling increasingly unable to manage Mr Y’s difficult behaviour.
10. The Council carried out a Child and Family Assessment and decided the work that needed to be undertaken could be done under the YOS programme and there was no role for CSC.
11. In August 2017 Mr Y was arrested. The Council’s records state Miss X would not allow Mr Y to return to her care and suggested the Council contact Mr Y’s father and provided his contact details. Mr Y was released on bail to reside at his father’s address, but he refused to stay there. Following a further court appearance a couple of days later Mr X was again bailed to his father’s address. Mr Y left the court on his own and did not go to his father’s property. He was reported as missing.
12. The police found Mr Y a month later in Norfolk, and arrested him in relation to the supply of drugs. When Mr Y returned to London, he was again bailed to his father’s address. Mr Y refused to go there and was again reported as missing. Mr Y was arrested in Norfolk again in early October 2017. Mr Y returned to Miss X’s address and was subject to an electronically monitored curfew.
13. The Council re opened the case and allocated Mr Y a social worker. A senior manger decided the potential risk of significant harm should be investigated under s 47 of the Children Act 1989, with input from the missing person coordinator, police, health, and the gang’s intervention team. This would enable the Council to decide whether it should take action to safeguard and promote Mr Y’s welfare.
14. Miss X attended a multi-agency meeting in November 2017, where a number of options/ interventions were suggested. This included a Young Persons Safety Plan (YPSP). The Council also made a referral to an organisation that helps young people exploited through gangs, Charity 1, for a mentor.
15. A social worker carried out a further Child and Family assessment in November 2017 and recommend Mr Y be supported by a CIN plan. A note added by their manager recommend the social worker develop a CIN plan with YOS and make a referral for a YPSP. The Council’s records show the social worker made a referral for a YPSP meeting in January 2018.
16. In February 2018 the social worker advised Miss X they had decided not to go ahead with the YPSP meeting as Mr Y was more settled and no longer going missing. The CIN plan remained in place.
17. The Council’s records show that in the following months Miss X raised concerns about a deterioration in Mr Y’s behaviour and having to call the police. In May 2018 Miss X also reported Mr Y as missing. Mr Y subsequently disclosed that he had been the victim of an abduction. Charity 1 also raised concerns and suggested Mr Y’s case be escalated from a CIN plan to a Child Protection plan due to neglect and emotional abuse. They advised that Miss X and Mr Y refused to engage with their service, and they were therefore unable to continue to provide the service.
18. The Council held a strategy meeting due to the increased concerns about Mr Y’s safety. This meeting discussed issues including the possibility of an out of area placement for Mr Y and escalating the case to a YPSP. The Council’s notes state Mr Y refused to have a YPSP. The Council completed a section 47 investigation in July 2018. This recommended Mr Y be referred for an Initial Child Protection Conference/ YPSP meeting due to the risks presented in the community and Miss X struggling to manage Mr Y’s behaviour.
19. In August 2018 the Council held an Initial Child Protection Conference and decided Mr Y should be subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of emotional harm. The following month the National referral mechanism awarded Mr Y a Positive Conclusive Grounds Decision, considering him a victim of modern slavery (human trafficking).
20. Miss X was concerned that Mr Y was not attending school and may be involved in County Lines activities again. She asked to explore the option of home education as Mr Y refused to go to school.
21. Mr Y’s social worker contacted the education inclusion team to request support to assist him in gaining an education. Mr X was scared of students at the school and people in the area. The inclusion team advised Mr Y was placed at the school as there were no alternatives in the borough.
22. The Council issued a summons regarding Mr Y’s non attendance at school in February 2019. In April 2019 YOS arranged for Mr Y to attend a vocational training course. The prosecution was then withdrawn.
23. At a Child protection Conference in March 2019 it was agreed to step Mr Y down from a Child Protection plan to a CIN plan.
24. In September 2019 Miss X made a formal complaint to the Ombudsman about the Council’s actions since 2017. Her complaints included concerns about the YOS service, Children’s Social Care, Charity 1, and education services. As Miss X had not been through the Council’s own complaints process, we forwarded her complaint to the Council to respond in the first instance.
25. The Council responded on 17 September 2019 setting out the action Children’s social care had taken between September 2017 and March 2019, and the support offered by other services. Miss X was not satisfied by this response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. She did not consider the Council had addressed her specific concerns.
26. The Council advised Miss X its letter of 17 September 2019 should not have been sent as a response to a complaint. It suggested Miss X had raised a number of questions rather than complaints and the Council had responded to them as such. The letter was not a response to a complaint as it did not contain any judgement on the matters she had raised. The Council suggested Miss X would need to submit a complaint if she wanted the matters she had raised considered under the Council’s complaints process.
27. Miss X confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints process. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer to carry out a stage two investigation in February 2020. Although the investigating officer sent Miss X a draft statement of complaint later that month, Miss X did not sign a final statement of complaint until November 2020. Miss X’s complaint covered several service areas which we had advised should be considered as a single complaint. The Council told Miss X it would only consider complaints related to children’s social care under the statutory complaints process and would need to pursue her other complaints through the other services’ own complaints procedures. There was some delay and confusion regarding how this would be managed.
28. The agreed statement of complaint identified 15 heads of complaint:
1. Mr Y was not subject to a Child Protection plan until August 2018 despite ongoing concerns about him going missing, allegedly being indebted to his traffickers, and disclosures of physical abuse and assaults in the community;
2. Safeguarding discussions at a multi-agency meeting in November 2017 regarding concerns Mr Y’s alleged trafficker had been seen outside School 1 and an agreement to seek alternative education provision, were omitted from the meeting minutes;
3. Miss X had asked in November 2017 that an organisation other than Charity 1 were approached to work with Mr Y, as Mr Y had taken a dislike to the worker and refused to engage. However, the Council recommissioned Charity 1 and the same worker was reallocated.
4. The Council failed to conduct a return home interview in September 2017;
5. Miss X questioned whether Mr Y’s mental and physical needs were assessed and why the Council did not carry out a risk assessment;
6. The Council did not tell Miss X that a worker from a support organisation was taking her son out of school in the Spring of 2018;
7. Miss X was not aware of any discussions with a support organisation following concerns raised in Spring 2018. She disputes making allegations against the support organisation;
8. Mr Y’s social worker prevented Miss X’s caseworker from attending the initial Child Protection conference in August 2018;
9. Miss X was concerned about comments in the stage 1 response that questioned her relationship with Mr Y and was concerned the Council did not understand the impact of Mr Y’s longstanding abusive and aggressive behaviour towards her. She questioned why she was not acknowledged or supported as a victim of domestic violence.
10. The stage 1 response incorrectly suggests School 1 and School 2 were explored as possible alternative educational provisions in August 2018;
11. Miss X disputes the Education Inclusion Team suggested she relocate and that she refused;
12. Children’s social care failed to support Mr Y to attend school and refused to support her in relation to the prosecution proceedings;
13. Mr Y’s social worker did not tell Miss X they had seen Mr Y at a college enrollment day;
14. Concerns about social workers’ practices in relation to work with her family. She questioned:
1. Why a social worker had attempted to gain access to her premises under false pretenses;
2. Why the Council obtained an order for Mr Y to live with his father in August 2017;
3. Why the Council allowed Mr Y to leave court alone in August 2017, enabling him to disappear again;
4. Why the Council encouraged her to attended sessions with Charity 1 but did not inform her the sessions were to address her parenting;
5. The Council refused to confirm what child protection concerns had been raised or by whom;
6. Officers advised Miss X that Mr Y would not have been entitled to any specialist support as he had been trafficked internally, not from overseas;
7. A social worker attempted to make Miss X sign a form to allow Mr Y to be accommodated by the Council in November 2018, without any discussion or explanation;
8. Miss X challenged quotes attributed to her in a pre-conference report in August 2018;
15. Miss X felt she had been unfairly and negatively portrayed by Children’s Social care on a number of occasions.
29. The stage two investigation upheld complaints 1, 3, 6, 7, and elements of 14 and 15; and partially upheld complaints 2, 8, 10 and 11. It did not uphold complaints 4, 9, 12, 13 or the remaining elements of 14 and 15.
30. The investigating officer concluded there had been significant drift / delay by the Council in the provision of intervention to Mr Y since March 2017. The decision to undertake a s47 investigation was not implemented and there was a delay in progressing to a YPSP. However they felt the Council had acted in accordance with statutory guidance and had taken a multi-agency approach to provide support and assistance to Mr Y and his family.
31. The investigating officer made a number of recommendations for service improvements. They did not make any recommendations regarding the injustice to Miss X as they considered the issue of compensation fell outside their remit.
32. The Council accepted the investigating officer’s findings and recommendations and apologised to Miss X for its failings. The Council also set out the steps it would take to implement the investigating officer’s recommendations.
33. Miss X accepted some of the investigating officer’s findings but remained unhappy with other aspects of her complaint and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X feels that some aspects of her complaint were not upheld or only partially upheld due to poor minute talking and record keeping by the Council. She also maintains there are inaccuracies in the Council’s records regarding discussions about moving out of the area and her parenting.
34. Miss X also remains concerned that the Council did not support her in relation to the domestic abuse she received from Mr Y and did not signpost her to support organisations. Miss X states she felt officers did not believe her and gave more weight to Mr Y’s version of events than her own.
35. In addition Miss X complains the Council mishandled her complaint with significant delays, and confusion and conflicting information about how it would be dealt with.

Analysis

36. There are strict timescales for responding to complaints about children’s social care services. Councils should respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 days of receiving it. A stage 2 investigation should take no more than 25 days for a simple complaint and no more than 65 days if the complaint is more complex. If a complaint goes to stage 3, a Review Panel should meet within 30 days of the request.
37. The Council’s failure to meet these timeframes amounts to fault. Miss X made a stage 1 complaint in September 2019, but the stage 2 investigation was not concluded until January 2021. Such significant delays are unacceptable and will have caused Miss X additional unnecessary frustration and distress.
38. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decisions on elements 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and parts of 15 but there is no evidence of fault in the way these issues were considered. It is clear the investigating officer had considered the records and interviewed the available officers. They noted the minutes of the meeting in November 2017 were recorded in bullet points, listing information shared by attendees. The minutes showed that issues of safeguarding were discussed. They also refer to the need to consider alternative education but do not give the rationale for this.
39. The investigating officer was satisfied the Council records showed that return home interviews were conducted in October 2017 and May 2018. There is no record of a return home interview in August 2017, but this may not have been possible given that Mr Y almost immediately went missing again.
40. Miss X states she requested her support worker attend the initial child protection conference, but the investigating officer found no record of any discussion about their attendance. They also noted that while there was evidence Miss X had requested they attend the review child protection conference, the support worker was not included on the invitation list. However, there was no evidence the Council had denied Miss X’s request that they attend.
41. The investigating officer was satisfied the records showed that officers working with the family had acknowledged and recognised Miss X’s concerns about Mr Y’s abusive behaviour. They noted the Council had encouraged Miss X to engage in parenting work to support and help her put in place routines and boundaries for Mr Y. The investigating officer acknowledged there was no evidence of any referrals to organisations working with parents of trafficked children. But they felt the prevalent objective of the CIN plan and YPSP was to provide support for Mr Y and Miss X in relation to the risk and concerns of contextual harm.
42. Miss X disputes the accuracy of the Council’s records regarding an offer of housing and the advice she received from a homelessness charity. She feels false information was recorded as the social worker had failed to adequately pursue this issue. The investigating officer noted there is no record of when the social worker contacted the housing service and agreed with Miss X that there had been an element of drift/ delay.
43. The investigating officer was satisfied there was no pre-arranged meeting between the social worker and Mr Y at the college and the social worker would not have known whether Miss X was aware of Mr Y’s intentions or not.
44. In addition, the investigating officer was satisfied there was sufficient evidence that professionals working with Mr Y had concerns about Miss X’s relationship with her son and her ability to put in place appropriate guidance and boundaries. They noted that while Miss X disputed Mr Y’s behaviour was related to her parenting, the evidence showed she was aware of the professional concern. The investigating officer was satisfied the social worker had shared the report for the initial child protection conference with Miss X and had explained the analysis and recommendations.
45. We are investigating a separate complaint regarding action taken in relation to Mr Y’s non-attendance at school.
46. The Council has implemented 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.
47. Having upheld, or partially upheld many of Miss X’s complaints I consider a financial remedy, in recognition of the impact the failings have had on Miss X would be appropriate. Any payment should also reflect the additional distress and frustration caused by the delay in completing the complaint process.
48. As Miss X has made this complaint in her own right, not on behalf of Mr Y, I will not consider any injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s failings.
49. 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. But, in some cases, where the avoidable distress is severe, this can be increased.
50. In this instance I consider a payment of £500 would be appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the distress and anxiety the delays and failings in the Council’s service has caused, and the length of time taken to complete the complaint process.
52. The Council should take his action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

53. The Council's delay in taking intervention measures to safeguard Mr Y and the failings in its service to Miss X amount to fault. As does the delay in completing the complaint process. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman