Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s decision to make a Prevent referral for his adult son, Mr X. Mr Y also complained about a lack of support after the referral. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to make a Prevent referral. However, the Council was at fault for failing to promptly notify Mr X about the outcome and for failing to support him throughout the process. The Council agreed to apologise and make a remedy payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council made a Prevent referral about his adult son, Mr X, without the family’s knowledge or consent and obstructed the family making a Subject Access Request.
2. Mr Y also complained the Council withdrew Mr X’s social care support after the referral, lied about the referral process, and did not inform the family about the outcome.
3. Mr Y said Mr X was distraught about the referral, feared he would be arrested, was worried about the impact on his future, and lost faith in the Council.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the Prevent referral and the way the Council subsequently handled matters surrounding it, including Mr X’s ongoing care and support.
5. I have not investigated Mr Y’s Subject Access Request (SAR). He has complained to the Information Commissioner about this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• Official Statistics on individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent programme, England and Wales, April 2020 to March 2021 (Updated 18 November 2021).
• Police guidance on when to make a Prevent referral.
• Government guidance on information sharing for safeguarding practitioners.
9. Mr Y 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

Guidance on Prevent referrals

10. The Prevent referral process is part of the Government's wider counter-terrorism strategy. It aims to safeguard people, address personal needs and vulnerabilities, and help people be more resilient to violent extremism.
11. The Government expects local authorities to assess the risk of individuals being drawn into terrorism. This should be informed by engagement with partners such as Prevent co-ordinators, schools, colleges, and health services.
12. The police encourage council officers to discuss concerns about someone’s wellbeing with their line manager or safeguarding lead.
13. If a council officer is concerned a person may be vulnerable to the risk or radicalisation, they can refer it to the police who will make an assessment.
14. There is no statutory requirement to obtain the individual’s consent before making a referral.
15. The police may conclude no further action is needed. Or they may refer the individual on for a partner agency to provide support.
16. Prevent referrals are confidential and do not result in a criminal record or other sanction.

Guidance on information sharing

17. Information shared by council officers should be necessary and proportionate, relevant, adequate, accurate, timely, and secure. Officers should also record when they make a decision to share or not to share information. If information is not shared, it is good practice to discuss it with the requestor.

What happened

18. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr Y’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
19. Mr X has a diagnosis of Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA), and learning difficulties. Mr X has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and attended college.
20. Mr X lives independently in supported living accommodation. On site care staff visit to support him with daily tasks, such as meal preparation.
21. Mr X’s family also provided support but, due to illness and the COVID-19 pandemic, they asked for support from the Council in 2020. This also coincided with a decline in Mr X’s mental and physical health.
22. The Council appointed a social worker who worked with Mr X’s parents and arranged psychiatric counselling. I will refer to Mr X’s social worker as Officer A. Officer A arranged regular reviews with Mr X’s parents in 2020 and 2021. Mr Y said these reviews took place every few weeks.
23. In September 2021, Mr X was struggling to attend college due to recurrent ill health. The college agreed for Mr X to withdraw for that academic year, in the hope of reattending when he recovered.
24. Officer A attended an EHC plan review meeting on 21 October 2021 which included Mr X’s parents and college staff. Others involved in Mr X’s care were also present. Mr X’s social worker was concerned that by withdrawing from college he may become socially isolated. She advised she intended to make a Prevent referral to the police.
25. Officer A recorded that all parties present agreed with her concerns about Mr X being out of college, but she noted Mr Y questioned whether a Prevent referral was the right way to proceed. Officer A said she would get more information and then discuss it further with Mr Y.
26. Following the meeting, Officer A contacted the Council’s safeguarding lead to discuss her concerns. She told the safeguarding lead she raised the issue with Mr X’s psychologist, but they were not overly concerned.
27. On advice from the safeguarding lead, Officer A emailed the police. She set out the circumstances and asked for advice on how to proceed.
28. The police sent Officer A a Prevent referral form and asked her to complete it. The police advised that a Prevent referral is the pre-criminal stage and does not require consent. There is a duty to make a referral under counter terrorism and security legislation.
29. Officer A contacted Mr Y on 22 October. She said she took advice about the Prevent referral process and she had a duty to make a referral. She said this did not mean a mentor would be assigned to Mr X, it may be that support from his parents is enough.
30. Mr Y telephoned Mr X’s social worker. He said the referral was a betrayal and abuse of trust, and she misread the situation. Officer A recorded she tried to explain the process was not punitive or accusatory but was meant to offer support.
31. Mr Y complained on 22 October 2021. He said the Council breached its duty of care and confidentiality to Mr X by sharing information with the Prevent team. He also said the Council’s actions were disproportionate and contrary to statutory guidance.
32. The Council sent its complaint response on 3 November 2021. It said:
• Officer A did not investigate Mr X or gather information covertly. Information came to light during a review which raised concerns about Mr X’s behaviour and the social worker acted on that information.
• It considered the topic of conversation was suitable for Mr X’s EHC plan review and came about naturally. It also said the college confirmed Prevent is part of their curriculum for all students.
• A Prevent referral was recommended as they use mentors who work with people to broaden their views on culture and ideology.
• It did not consider Officer A abused her position of trust, she was trying to secure other means of education and support for Mr X.
• Duty of care is paramount, but it has a duty to share information of concern with other agencies under counter terrorism legislation.
• Before making the referral, Officer A sought advice from the Council’s safeguarding lead and from the Prevent team. A police officer advised Officer A to make a referral. They also advised consent was not required and there was a duty to make a referral under the Counter Terrorism Act 2015.
• Because Mr Y asked the Council not to contact Mr X it will be difficult to communicate to him how his information was used.
33. Mr Y contacted Officer A on 11 November. He said given the loss of trust and his allegation of misconduct; it was not suitable for her to remain as Mr X’s social worker. Mr Y said Mr X was very distressed about the Prevent referral and needed continuing support. He therefore asked for the Council to assign a new social worker.
34. The police contacted the Council on 22 December. It confirmed its assessment was complete and it would be closing the referral as it did not meet the threshold for further action. The police were aware Mr Y was unhappy with the referral and told the Council it would be suitable to tell him of the result.
35. The Council told the police it would not share the result with Mr Y because he does not have LPA for Mr X’s health and welfare. It said it hoped to meet with Mr X in the New Year to tell him.
36. As well as making a complaint, Mr Y also made a Subject Access Request (SAR), asking to see the Mr X’s case records and the reasons for the Council’s Prevent referral.
37. A different social worker, who I will call Officer B, spoke to Mr Y on 30 December. She said she wanted to arrange a meeting with Mr X to gain his consent to share information with Mr Y. Officer B said, considering Mr X’s Autism and learning disability, it was important to share information in a way he would understand and to help support him make the decision himself. Mr Y expressed dissatisfaction because the Council previously said Mr X had capacity, now it was questioning whether he lacked capacity. He thought this was a deliberate attempt to refuse his information request. Mr Y eventually agreed for Officer B to visit the family in January 2022.
38. At the meeting, Officer B confirmed the police were not taking the Prevent referral any further. However, despite the meeting, Mr Y said the Council still refused to disclose Mr X’s records. Mr Y also said Officer B wrongly told Mr X the police would not keep a record of the referral, and that anything he said in future would not be disclosed to the police.
39. Mr Y brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2022.

My investigation

40. Mr Y told me all support Mr X and the family received from his social worker before October 2021 ceased after the Prevent referral. He said Officer A identified needs for activities to avoid isolation, and needing a cleaner to help maintain his home, but the Council did not follow through on this after making the Prevent referral.
41. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me Officer A mentioned a Prevent referral to Mr X’s parents during an EHC plan review. Officer A did not discuss her concerns with Mr X before making a referral. Officer A then told Mr X’s parents after making the referral.
42. The Council said it did not need Mr X’s consent at the referral stage.
43. The Council explained it planned to speak to Mr X about the police closing the Prevent referral during a home visit in January 2022. It did not notify Mr X’s parents because they did not have LPA for his health and welfare.
44. The Council told me Mr Y withdrew his consent for Officer B to work with Mr X.
45. In response to my draft decision, the Council said it needed to appoint a suitably experienced new social worker for Mr X, but this was impacted by pressures on its service and other urgent cases at the time.
46. The Council also said this was a difficult situation and it was considering how best to handle things, given the anger and complaints from Mr Y. The Council acknowledged the importance of Mr Y’s role in Mr X’s care and support, but it wanted to speak to Mr X to ensure he was happy to share his records. The Council felt it was better for the new social worker to discuss things with Mr X in person, rather than by telephone.

Analysis

47. The relevant guidance confirms council officers can discuss Prevent referrals with partners including schools and colleges. I therefore do not criticise Officer A for raising the issue during an ECH plan review. All information discussed about Mr X during that meeting is confidential and attendees would know not to disclose personal information. If Mr Y considers the Council breached Mr X’s confidentiality or failed to comply with data protection laws during the EHC plan review meeting he can complain to the Information Commissioner.
48. Officer A acted in line with guidance by discussing the matter with the Council’s safeguarding lead and then seeking advice from the police. While I appreciate it may appear Mr X was at low risk of being radicalised, the decision to make a referral was to a degree a professional judgement made by Officer A. They felt they had a duty to make a referral and they did not need Mr X or Mr Y’s consent to do so. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for making a Prevent referral.
49. I found Mr Y did not ask the Council to withdraw all support from Mr X. He sought to withdraw Mr X’s consent to work with Officer A, but he made it clear Mr X had continuing care and support needs and asked the Council to appoint a new social worker. Given the circumstances and the breakdown in trust, this was a reasonable request which I would have expected the Council to respond to.
50. The Council’s failure to engage with Mr X’s request for a new social worker was fault. I have also not seen evidence the Council tried to resolve the impasse with Mr Y. That was a missed opportunity and resulted in Mr X not receiving some identified care and support for several months.
51. The Council was aware Mr X was vulnerable. Officer A highlighted the risks associated with social isolation because Mr X was no longer going to college. The Council has a statutory duty under the Care Act 2014 (section 18) to meet eligible care and support needs. Despite this, it allowed some of his support to stop at a time he needed it most. I appreciate Mr Y raised a formal complaint and wanted Officer A’s involvement to end, but the Council’s duty was to Mr X, and I have not seen any evidence it tried to support him at that time.
52. When the police dropped the Prevent referral it asked the Council to tell Mr Y. The Council refused. I found the Council’s reasoning to be contrary to the events which had gone before. Mr Y was an integral part of Mr X’s care and support. He was involved in care and support meetings and in support planning. Officer A also discussed the Prevent referral with him, both before and at the time of the referral. For the Council to then decide not to tell Mr Y about the result is inconsistent and I can appreciate Mr Y’s frustration.
53. In addition, the Council decided not to tell Mr X straight away. It planned to speak to him in the New Year. By that time, Mr X found out about the result through his psychiatrist, which further eroded his trust in the Council. I found the Council at fault for failing to communicate the decision to Mr X promptly.
54. In summary, while I did not find the Council at fault for deciding to make a Prevent referral, I did find the Council at fault for the way it handled the referral and the subsequent fall out. The Council lost sight of what should have been its main priority – supporting Mr X – and its actions caused a breakdown in relations, loss of trust, and significant distress.
55. The Council has now re-engaged with Mr X and a new social worker is offering support, which is welcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for not informing him of the outcome of the Prevent referral straight away and for failing to support him during that time.
• Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the significant distress its faults caused.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to make a Prevent referral. However, the Council was at fault for failing to promptly notify Mr X about the outcome and for failing to support him throughout the process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman