Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to complete the recommendations made at stage two and three of the children statutory complaint procedure. Ms X said this caused her significant distress. We find some fault with the Council for the delays in completing some of the recommendations. We have made some recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complaints about the Council’s children services intervention in October 2019 have been investigated under the children statutory complaint procedure. The investigation found some fault with the Council and recommendations were made to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. Ms X complains the Council failed to complete the recommendations made at stage two and three.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Ms X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I complete a site visit to the Council’s office to review its case records for Ms X and her children.
8. I sent a draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedure

9. 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 (the guidance), explains councils' responsibilities in more detail.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. If a complainant is not happy with a council's stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At stage two, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person. 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.
12. Once a complaint has been through the full procedure, unless the complainant points to faults or omissions in the Council’s consideration, it should not need re-investigating. The regulations specify the Council-appointed investigator should be independent. The process is also overseen by an independent person (who is not an elected member or an employee). Therefore, their findings should be relied on unless there are flaws in the process or it has clearly not been robust enough.

What happened

13. Ms X has three children with her ex-partner, Mr Y. Ms X previously complained about the Council’s children’s services intervention in 2015/16. The stage three panel considered her complaints and made recommendations.
14. In October 2019, following a referral from the probation service reporting Mr Y was due to be released from prison, the Council’s children’s services began intervention by completing an unannounced visit to the family home.
15. Ms X made a complaint about the visit and the events that occurred afterwards, including calling an initial child protection conference. Ms X made 24 points of complaints, which were considered under stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure in January 2021.
16. The stage two report findings were:
• 15 complaints upheld
• 7 complaints not upheld
• 2 complaints where there were no findings made
17. The stage two report made the following recommendations:
• Consideration of a time and trouble payment to take into account the number of complaints made and upheld. Also to consider the similarities between social work engagement and intervention in 2015/6 and again in 2019/20.
• Written apology for all identified failures.
• Apology specifically for the children.
• Documentation containing wrong information to be amended on the case files.
• Review policy and procedures related to unannounced home visits and personal safety training for staff.
• Payment of Ms X’s parking ticket for the date of the conference.
• Consideration of whether the Council should retrospectively investigate a referral related to abuse of Ms X’s child by another child.
• Reminder to all professionals that social worker reports must be evidence based and when written, consideration must be given to how the subject of the report will receive the information
18. In the Council’s adjudication letter, the Council agreed with all the findings made by the stage 2 investigator. The Council also agreed to complete the recommendations made.
19. Ms X’s complaints were considered at stage 3 of the children statutory complaint procedure in March 2021. The stage 3 review considered the actions and evidence of the stage 2 investigation and adjudication. The stage 3 panel also reviewed the findings on the complaints that were not upheld, or where no finding was made.
20. The stage 3 review panel made the following findings:
• The stage 2 investigation report was evidence based and adequately investigated Ms X’s complaints.
• The conclusions based on the stage 2 investigating officer’s assessment of the evidence were appropriate in the circumstances.
• The case records contained several significant and unverified statements with the potential to mislead or create bias. There was also evidence the case records contained factually inaccurate information and these errors were being used to make decisions that impact the family.
• The Council had previously accepted historical errors dating back to 2016 but failed to make the appropriate corrections.
• The errors had been communicated to relevant professionals.
21. The stage three review panel made the following recommendations:
• Council to apologise for failings identified in the stage 2 investigation report and stage 3 review panel hearing. Council should also consider the appropriateness of the remarks made by the head of service.
• Council to share the stage 2 investigation report with staff so they can reflect on practice during supervision and identify any extra learning relating to individual/team practice.
• Council to identify and remove from all records the false statements which portrays Ms X as a person unable to protect her children, as a mother who uses cocaine, and as someone who has engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor. This was to be done within 10 working days of the stage 3 panel letter.
• Council to send a letter to each relevant agency, including the school, explaining the above statements are false and should not have been ascribed to Ms X. The Council will share a copy of the letters sent to Ms X.
• Council to correct case records going back to 2016. The Council should ensure records are evidence based, and language used is clear and unambiguous. It was noted the Council would benefit from Ms X’s engagement with this process. The Council was to complete this work by 1 July 2021.
• To remind staff of the need to be clear in their writing and to include all relevant facts.
• Council to re-examine their proposed remedy. The Council should consider the delays in correcting the records following the recommendations made in 2016, and the uncertainty, distress and time and trouble taken to pursue the matter.
• On production of evidence of the parking fine, the Council should pay the fine in full. To achieve this recommendation, Ms X should provide her bank details and evidence of the outstanding fine within 20 working days of the stage 3 panel letter.
• Council to review the risks associated with Ms X’s ex-partner.
22. In the Council’s adjudication letter, the Council agreed with the stage 3 review panel findings. The Council agreed to complete all recommendations made by the stage 3 review panel.
23. In March 2021, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. Ms X did not complain about how the stage 2 investigation or stage 3 review was completed. She instead highlighted her concerns the Council had not completed the recommendations made and that she felt the system did not hold the Council to account.
24. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided evidence of, the actions it had taken to complete the stage 2 and 3 recommendations.
25. There is evidence the Council completed the following in response to the stage 2 and 3 recommendations:
• An apology was issued to Ms X for all identified faults.
• An apology was issued to Ms X’s children and an offer made for the children to be visited and spoken to. Ms X declined this offer.
• It completed a review of its policy on unannounced visits. The Council added it was also reviewing the Lone Worker policy.
• It considered the referral made by Ms X about abuse of her child by another child. The Council decided to take no further action.
• It held a learning event in May 2021. At this event, the Council highlighted to staff the need to be mindful of what is written in reports, ensuring reports contained evidence based facts, and for names and dates to be accurate.
• The head of service had reflected on the comments made and provided clarity on what he meant by the comments made. The head of service apologised for the matters upheld and for any confusion their comments created.
• It had asked Ms X for her bank details so it could pay for the parking fine. The Council said Ms X did not provide her bank details.
• It had contacted probation services asking for information about Mr Y’s release from prison. The probation service confirmed it would start planning for Mr Y’s release 12 weeks in advance and will make a referral to children’s services so they can decide what response is needed. The Council confirmed the case was closed to it while it waited for the referral from probation.
• It sent letters to the health visitor, school nurse, police, and schools. The letter highlighted the inaccurate information shared which portrayed Ms X as a person unable to protect her children, as a mother who uses cocaine, and as someone who engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor.
26. Ms X told us she felt the Council’s apologies were insincere and not genuine. She said she felt the Council had not taken her complaint seriously or accepted the faults identified. She also confirmed she did not provide the Council with her bank account details so the Council could give her the money to pay for the parking fine. Ms X said she felt the Council should pay for the parking fine directly and that she had given the Council information on how to pay the fine.
27. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X by the faults identified, the Council offered Ms X the following:
• £1000 for Ms X
• £200 for Ms X’s adult daughter’
• £100 for Ms X’s mother
• £200 in gift vouchers for the children
28. In addition to the information provided by the Council in response to our enquiries, we also completed a site visit to review the Council’s case records for Ms X and her children.
29. We noted and completed the following during our visit:
• The Council uses a case record system as its main recording database. This case record system holds individual documents. The social worker case notes are held as separate documents.
• The Council had separate case records for Ms X, and her three children. Ms X’s record only contained information related to a subject access request and her complaints. All child protection information were held on the children’s case records.
• We checked the documents which would usually include historical information, such as assessments and chronologies, for mention of Ms X as a person unable to protect her children, as a mother who uses cocaine, and as someone who has engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor. We found no documents containing this information.
• We completed randomised checks of other documents available in the records for the above information. We found records of phone calls made to Ms X to advise of the referral and its contents.
• The original referral which first mentioned the information had been deleted from the records.
• Some documents reviewed showed a digital footprint of the case being reopened, with the reason for reopening given as ‘complaint’. The documents had been opened and amended before our visit. Screenshots of some examples of these reopened cases notes the record was closed in September and October 2021.
• The Council provided copies of internal emails between officers outlining the work to be completed.
• A warning message had been added to each child’s record to note Ms X disputed some information and that officers should not use previous information in new assessments. The message noted social workers should base new assessments on fresh information and to check accuracy of historical information with Ms X first.
30. The officer who was completed the deletion and amendment works confirmed during our visit they completed most of the work in May and June 2021. They also confirmed they had tried to call Ms X to get her involvement in the amendment work, but that she declined to help. The officer also said they completed the work to delete and amend records around August 2021.
31. Ms X confirmed the Council had contacted her about the amendments to the case records. However, Ms X said the social work who contacted her was one of the social workers who was involved in recording the inaccurate information, so she was unhappy and did not wish to engage.
32. In response to our draft decision, the Council explained the statement which portrayed Ms X as a person unable to protect her children, as a mother who uses cocaine, and as someone who has engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor was only contained in two documents, the single assessment and referral. The Council said it deleted these in February and April 2021. The Council said this was in line with the stage 3 recommendations.

Analysis

33. Ms X did not complain about the process followed by the Stage 2 investigation or stage 3 review. After reviewing the stage 2 investigation report and stage 3 panel review findings, there is no evidence to suggest there was any fault in the way the investigation and review was completed, or that the findings are not robust.
34. Therefore, we have not reinvestigated Ms X’s complaints and have relied on the stage 2 and 3 findings. We have only considered whether the Council has completed the recommendations made at stage 2 and 3.

Apology

35. There is evidence the Council has apologised to Ms X and her children for the faults identified by the stage 2 investigation and stage 3 review. These apologies were issued as part of the Council’s adjudication response to stage 2 and 3.
36. I acknowledge Ms X is not happy with the apology provided as she feels the apology is not sincere or genuine. While I understand Ms X feels the Council’s apology is not genuine or sincere, I am satisfied the Council had apologised and so completed this recommendation satisfactorily.

Parking fine

37. There is evidence Ms X provided the Council with evidence of the parking fine. There is also evidence the Council asked Ms X for her bank details so it could make a payment to cover the parking fine. Ms X has confirmed she did not provide her bank details to the Council.
38. Therefore, it is clear the parking fine has not been paid. However, I do not consider this to be due to any fault by the Council. This is because the stage 3 recommendation noted Ms X should give the Council her bank details to allow the Council to pay her the money for the parking fine. The stage 3 recommendation did not ask the Council to pay the fine directly to the parking company.
39. The Council asked Ms X to provide her bank details. As Ms X did not provide her bank details, the Council could not transfer her the money. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has complied with the stage 3 recommendation as far as possible. It is open to Ms X to provide the Council with her bank details to allow it to arrange payment so she can pay her parking fine.

False statements

40. There is evidence the Council has deleted information from its records which portrays Ms X as a person unable to protect her children, as a mother who uses cocaine, and having engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor. The Council has explained there were only two documents which contained the information portraying Ms X as these things. The Council confirmed these were deleted from its records in February and April 2021.
41. We originally found fault with the Council for failing to remove and identify the false statements from all case records. However, after consideration of the Council’s comments on the draft decision, we now accept the Council did comply with this stage three recommendation.
42. This is because we acknowledge the wording of the stage 3 recommendations is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The Council has interpreted the recommendation as meaning it needed to remove the statements that portrayed Ms X as a person unable to protect her children, as a mother who uses cocaine, and as someone who has engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor. In other words, references that suggest those statements are true about Ms X. The Council said this was not the same as removing every record that includes the information, especially if it did not specifically portray Ms X as those things.
43. We also acknowledged we had found some case records of telephone calls with Ms X which noted those statements. However, I am satisfied it is appropriate for these records to remain as they are a factual record of the conversations and discussions the social worker had with Ms X regarding the referral and information received. During our visit, we found no other evidence of this statement in other records.
44. Therefore, while we accept there might still be some case records which contains the statements, such as the one with the phone record, we acknowledge these are unlikely to be written in a way which portrays Ms X as those things.

Amendments of inaccuracies from 2016

45. The stage 3 panel also recommended the Council correct case records, going back to 2016, to amend the inaccuracies held on file. The panel recommended the Council completed this work by July 2021 and noted the Council would benefit from Ms X’s engagement with this process.
46. It is clear Ms X did not engage fully with this work. While I understand Ms X had her reasons for not engaging with this work, I am satisfied this meant the Council was limited in what it could correct. This is because it did not know exactly what information Ms X felt was inaccurate. This also means it is likely the Council may not have amended or removed all information Ms X considers to be inaccurate.
47. Further, I note the Council has put a warning message on Ms X and the children’s record which highlights Ms X disputes some information held on the case records. The message is also clear that officers should not use previous information in any new assessments and that officers should check the accuracy historical information with Ms X first.
48. In the absence of Ms X providing the Council with a definitive list of all the information she considers to be inaccurate, I am satisfied this is a robust measure to prevent potentially inaccurate information being used by the Council in future assessments. I note this could cause Ms X upset, especially if a social worker was to ask her about information she considers to be inaccurate. However, I consider this to be unavoidable given it is not reasonable to expect the Council to know exactly what information Ms X considers to be inaccurate.
49. The Council has provided evidence of the information amended in the records and evidenced it reopened the case records. Therefore, on balance, I am satisfied the Council has likely complied with this recommendation as much as it could without Ms X’s full engagement.
50. However, the evidence suggests the Council did not complete the work by July 2021. This is because during our site visit, the officer dealing with the amendment works said she likely finished the work around August 2021. Further, the evidence seen during our site visit also suggests several case records were only closed in September and October 2021.
51. I consider the delay in completing the deletion and amendment works will have caused Ms X some distress. This is because she will now know the Council did not complete the recommendations in a timely manner. This in turn will reinforce her view the Council has not taken her complaint seriously, or accepted the faults identified during the statutory children complaint procedure.
52. With regards to the rest of the recommendations made by stage 2 and 3, I am satisfied there is evidence to support the Council has complied with them.
53. Finally, I have considered the Council’s financial remedy offer to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused by the faults identified at stage 2 and 3 of the statutory children complaint procedure. I am satisfied the Council’s offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Therefore, I do not consider any further financial remedy for the faults identified at stage 2 and 3 is appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed actions

54. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the delays in completing the amendment works.
• Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the distress caused by the delays.
• Ask Ms X for her bank details and arrange payment to cover the cost of the parking fine.
• Pay Ms X the financial remedy offer it made following the stage 3 panel review hearing. This was:
1. £1000 for Ms X
2. £200 for Ms X’s adult daughter
3. £100 for Ms X’s mother
4. £200 in gift vouchers for the children
55. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I find fault with the Council for the delays in completing the deletion and amendment recommendations made at stage 2 and 3. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman