Summary: Ms C says the Council was responsible for numerous failures related to an investigation into risk to her children. Primarily, she says social workers and others made unjustified allegations against her. She says she suffered injustice as a result because the Council made incorrect assumptions about her children and they did not receive the support they should have done. The Council complied with the statutory complaints procedure and commissioned an independent investigation and held a review which were fair and considered the relevant information. The Ombudsman cannot, therefore, reinvestigate. However, the Council did not respond adequately to the findings and recommendations of the investigation. It should apologise and pay Ms C a sum to recognise that fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I have called Ms C says the Council was responsible for numerous failures relating to her children. Among other things, she says:
1. Council officers conducted an investigation into risk to her children in an unfair way which led to false allegations against her;
2. The Council failed to state in its reports that the investigations into risk to her children began because her former partner assaulted her;
2. She says she and her children suffered injustice as a result because they missed out on services.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Ms C has also made allegations about failures made by the Council in relation to her housing. The Ombudsman has investigated these complaints in a different decision. I have not considered them again here.
4. Further, as is stated in paragraph 5, this matter has already been investigated under the three-stage statutory process. Therefore, it is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the allegations in detail. I have only looked into whether the Council responded fairly to her complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s care services. If a council has investigated a complaint using this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate unless he considers that the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation. If we are satisfied with a council’s 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.
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I spoke to Ms C. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. I considered the Council’s response alongside relevant law and guidance. I then wrote a draft decision which I sent to Ms C and the Council and invited comment.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

The statutory complaints procedure

11. The Children Act stipulates that there should be a special complaints procedure for children’s services complaints. This procedure is set out in the Department for Education guidance, Getting the Best from Complaints.
12. The guidance sets out a three-stage complaint process:
1. Stage One: Local resolution. This should take ten days (with a further ten days in complex cases). Most complaints will be resolved at this stage.
2. Stage Two: Investigation. This stage starts when the complainant requests it. It should take 25 days. This can be extended to a maximum of 65 days. The investigation should be conducted by an investigating officer and an independent person. The independent person should accompany the investigating officer throughout the investigation. A senior officer should then act as adjudication officer and give the council’s decision.
3. Stage Three: Review Panel. The complainant has 20 days to request a stage three review. The council has 30 days to convene and hold the panel. The panel has 5 days to consider its finding and the council then has 15 days to respond to its findings. The panel should consist of three independent people. It should hear from all parties, consider the adequacy of the stage 2 investigation, find any further information that may help resolve the complaint and reach findings and make recommendations.

What happened

13. Ms C has three children. The eldest is 13. The youngest is three. She was in an abusive relationship until 2016.
14. In 2015, Ms C sought support from the Council and from charities for her eldest daughter. The Council allocated a support worker. Ms C says the Council then said Ms C required greater assistance and withdrew the worker suggesting she should gain assistance through a different channel. A Council officer, Officer O, met her in January 2016. At the meeting, Ms C says she told the Council she did not want any further assistance.
15. Ms C became pregnant in late 2015. She says the NHS referred her to social services on several occasions during her pregnancy. Her child was born in July 2016. She says her partner sexually assaulted her in front of her oldest child in September 2016. Ms C called the police who made a referral to social services.
16. Ms C says social services did not allocate a social worker to her case. But, in September 2016, she says, Officer O phoned her and insisted on a meeting.
17. In October 2016, Ms C says Officer O told an assessment social worker, Officer P, that Ms C had been ‘known to Early Help for at least a year’ and said he had been supporting her with housing and family support. Ms C says this was not true. She says Officer O knew that ‘by deliberately making false allegations, it would block me from getting services’.
18. Officer P carried out a risk assessment for Ms C’s children. Ms C says she thinks that Officers O and P were in contact while Officer P wrote his report.
19. She says Officer P made errors in his report and downplayed the seriousness of the domestic violence she had suffered. She says he filled the report with opinions rather than facts and made unsubstantiated allegations against her. She says he missed appointments and communicated badly.
20. Officer P completed his assessment in early June 2016 but, she says, then requested her medical files in January 2017.
21. MS C says she pressed the Council for answers. She went to her MP who said he would help and then did not.
22. In July 2017, Ms C complained to the Council both about her housing and her children’s services issues. I will not deal with the housing points. As far as the children’s services element went, she said she wanted The Council to:
1. Scrap Officer P’s report and have a female social worker write a replacement.
2. Hold a new child protection conference;
3. Hold out a multi-agency risk assessment conference;
4. Create children in need plans for her children;
5. Arrange for counselling for her eldest child;
6. Provide support for her when she had to go to court; and
7. Pay her compensation and out-of-pocket expenses;
8. Conduct a risk assessment of her former partner;
9. Investigate Officers O and P’s behaviour while involved in her case;
10. Investigate why Officer P had been asked to write the report when she had requested a female social worker;
11. Investigate why the Council’s Family Justice Centre did not help her when she was at risk of domestic violence.
12. ‘Scrap’ Officer P’s investigation which was flawed.

Stage one complaint

23. The Council investigated her concerns. It spoke to various officers but did not speak to Officer O as he no longer worked for the Council. It found:
1. Officer O should have closed the Early Help file in early 2016. He did not do so so contacts for support were sent to Early Help in summer 2016 and were not acknowledged or acted upon.
2. While Officer O’s failure did delay contact with early help services, this did not prevent an assessment because the referrals did not meet the threshold for statutory social work intervention.
3. The Council accepted it did not become aware of the problem until late September 2016 and therefore provided an inadequate service until that point but, thereafter, Officer P had carried out a proper investigation.
4. Officer O had influenced Officer P’s view of the risk to her children.
24. It did not uphold her other complaints. The Council apologised for any fault but did not offer her any other remedy.

Stage two investigation

25. Ms C was not satisfied with the Stage one response and requested a stage two investigation. There was a considerable delay between the Stage one response and the stage two investigation. Ms C made numerous complaints:
1. The complaints officer did not investigate her stage one complaint properly;
2. Officer P did not consult all relevant professionals during his investigation;
3. Officer P should not have assessed Ms C as a parent because the referral had occurred because the police were concerned about domestic violence by her partner;
4. Officer P suggested that Ms C had performed ‘sexual favours’ something which she strongly denies. She says this has led Council staff to judge her.
5. The Council should have replaced Officer P with a female social worker at her request;
6. Officer P belittled female officers by giving them misleading job titles.
7. Officer P did not assess the risk posed to her children by her former partner.
8. Contrary to the Council’s claims, Officer O was involved in the risk assessment.
9. Officer P had insinuated that Ms C had alcohol and drug dependency problems in his report by failing to assert that she did not have such problems.
10. Officer P had failed to address the possibility that her eldest child might be abducted in his report.
11. The report failed to address her concerns that one child was self-harming;
12. Officer P had failed to address Ms C’s housing concerns;
13. Officer P had wrongly stated that Ms C had a level of resilience in managing through this crisis’;
14. The Council had failed to scrap Officer P’s report as she had requested;
15. The Council had failed to investigate her allegations against the Family Justice Centre.
26. The independent investigation found:
1. The Council had investigated Ms C’s stage 1 complaint fairly and fully;
2. Officer O had failed to close the Early Help file. This had resulted in Ms C and her family missing out on services.
3. There was no requirement for the Council to remove Officer B’s report from its files;
4. Officer P had failed to contact all relevant professionals (family doctor, schools) when writing his report.
5. The report should have made clear the fact that the referral to social services came because of fears that Ms C’s former partner had been abusive.
6. Officer P should have mentioned in the report that Ms C had referred her partner to the police and this was why the investigation commenced.
7. There were some details missing from the report such as the manager’s signature and date.
8. The Council did appoint a female social worker to work with Officer P.
27. The investigation recommended the Council should:
1. Apologise for any failings and indicate what action it would take;
2. Inform staff who had been criticised;
3. Improve case recording;
4. Inform staff of the importance of making records in a timely way;
5. Ensure that assessments are well written, informative and evidenced based with findings and observations clearly presented;
28. Assessments must be shared with those involved and in a time frame that allows them to have an opportunity to comment and/or correct any factual inaccuracies. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the Council has agreed that it will:
1. Apologise to Ms C for its failures; and
2. Pay her £200.
3.  
29. In his adjudication letter, the acting director of the relevant department said the Council accepted the findings of the independent investigation. He apologised to Ms C for the Council’s failings but refused to pay her any compensation or out-of-pocket expenses as she had requested.

Stage three review

30. Ms C asked for a stage three review. This was held in April 2019. The panel heard Ms C. She said:
1. The original complaint handler had not properly answered her complaint because, for example, the response had not dealt with allegations made about Ms C. The panel felt it could not reach a view on this point.
2. Neither the first or second stage had dealt with her housing concerns. The panel found that these matters could not be dealt with through the statutory process.
3. There was no reason to investigate Ms C’s former partner as a risk to their children;
4. There was no reason why Officer P should not have discussed her case with Officer O;
5. Officer O should have made it clear in his report that Ms C did not use drugs;

Was there fault causing injustice?

31. In most regards, the Council fulfilled its duties. Its investigations were fair. Ms C made numerous criticisms most of which were not upheld.
32. However, although the statutory complaints process was followed correctly (and any delay was not the Council’s fault), the Council did not follow through on the findings of the independent investigation or adequately remedy the fault found.
33. At the end of stage two, the acting director of Early Help and Children’s Social Care, wrote an adjudication letter in which he claimed to accept the investigation’s findings. But he did so in a way which, intentionally or not, gives the impression that the Council did not accept any fault.
34. The letter was nine pages long. Most of it was a list of Ms C’s criticisms and requests for action. Inserted after each point, the director wrote ‘it follows that I agree with the investigating officer’ which, in context, made little sense and gave the impression that this was a standard letter with no personalised input and that, therefore, he had not engaged with the findings of the investigation.
35. It did contain an apology but this was so brief as to be easily missed in a nine-page letter. He also failed to offer any further token of apology and this compounded the impression given that the Council did not accept the investigation’s findings.
36. This was fault. There were serious criticisms of the Council in the stage 2 investigation. And, while the Council said that it accepted these recommendations it gave no evidence that it had accepted the recommendations or incorporated them into its working practices.
37. Ms C believes that she missed out on services as a result of this failure. There is no evidence to support this. Nonetheless, she was upset by these failures and the Council’s failure to respond to them adequately.
38. I have therefore recommended that, in order to remedy the fault found, the Council should apologise again and pay Ms C £200.

Agreed action

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have found the Council was at fault. I recommended a remedy to recognise this fault which the Council has accepted. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman