Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s investigation into its handling of a single assessment it carried out on her and her child, A, in 2016. The Council was at fault. The Statutory investigation found it failed to provide Ms X with a copy of the single assessment until 2018 and failed to adequately respond to her stage 1 complaints. The Council also failed to adequately respond to Ms X’s request for counselling and therapy for A. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Ms X a total of £400 to recognise the upset, frustration and avoidable time and trouble caused by its failings.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s stage 2 investigation following her complaint about a single assessment it completed in 2016. Ms X complained
• the Council did not provide her with a copy of single assessment until 2018, so she did not have the opportunity to dispute the content;
• the content of the assessment was biased and untrue; and
• the Council ignored her request for access to Counselling and therapy for A.
2. Ms X said the Council’s handling of the matter has caused her upset, frustration, uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered the information she provided.
8. I considered the stage 2 complaint investigation report.
9. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
10. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider the comments before I make my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Protecting children from harm

11. The Council has a duty to investigate if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This duty comes under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
12. The government has issued guidance to Councils managing cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety or welfare.
13. The Council must have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is likely to suffer harm before it can enquire. The Council cannot investigate to see if there is a problem unless it has reasonable cause for suspicion.

Child protection referrals

14. When the council receives a referral which suggests there are concerns about the safety and wellbeing of a child, it has 24 hours to decide how to respond. The social worker will decide whether:
• The child needs immediate protection.
• The child is ‘in need’.
• There are reasonable grounds to suspect the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and section 47 enquires are needed.
• Whether it needs to take any action at all.
15. Unless the child needs immediate protection, in most cases the social worker will carry out an assessment, which is usually known as a Child and Family Assessment or Single Assessment. The council must complete the assessment within 45 working days. The purpose of the assessment is to gather information to look at the needs of the child and their family and analyse the level of any risk of harm to the child.
16. The social worker completing the assessment should speak to the children, the parents, the school, and any other professionals involved with the child or their family. The Children Act 1989 says the council must consider the child’s wishes and feelings as part of the assessment.
17. Once the council has completed the assessment it will decide on one of the following:
• That the child is not ‘in need’ and the council does not need to take any further action.
• That the child is ‘in need’, but it determined the child is not suffering, or is not likely to suffer significant harm. In this case the council will decide what help and support it can provide to the child and their family to address any difficulties they are experiencing.
• That the child is ‘in need’ and there are concerns the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. In this case the council will decide whether a child protection investigation is necessary, and whether the child needs immediate protection.

Children’s services statutory complaints process

18. There is a formal procedure, set out in law, which the Council must follow to investigate certain types of complaint. It involves three stages:

• Local resolution by the Council (Stage 1);
• an investigation by an independent investigator who will prepare a detailed report and findings (Stage 2). The Council then issues an adjudication letter which sets out its response to the findings; and, if the person making the complaint asks
• an independent panel to consider their representations (Stage 3).

19. Regulations set out the timescales for the process. The Council should provide a response at Stage 1 within 10 working days and at Stage 2 within 25 working days (or exceptionally within 65 working days). The Council should call a review panel at Stage 3 within 30 working days.
20. When the Council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel, and any remedy the council offers.

What happened

21. Ms X lives with her child A. She was separated from A’s father who lived elsewhere but had regular contact with A. In September 2016, Ms X called the Council about A who was at the time 8 years old. Ms X said A’s father, Mr Y had sexually abused A. The Council told Ms X to report it to the police. Ms X reported the matter to the police the same day who started an investigation. The police arrested Mr Y the following day. The police referred the matter to the Council as a child protection matter. The Council decided to investigate the matter under section 47 of the Children Act and allocated a social worker, social worker 1, to make enquires.
22. Social worker 1 began making enquiries straight away and visited Ms X and A with the police. Ms X provided a statement to the police and both the police and social worker 1 tried to speak to A about the matter. Social worker 1 visited A at school where they were spoken to and observed. Ms X spoke to social worker 1 about her past relationship with Mr Y. Social worker 1 made enquiries with A’s school and doctor and also spoke with A’s paternal grandparents.
23. Following social worker 1’s visit, Ms X called the Council and asked for counselling and advice for A. The records show social worker 1 told Ms X that due to the serious nature of the allegation, the Council were gathering information and the police would need to speak to A first to see if they disclosed anything.
24. In early October 2016, the Council held a meeting about its enquiries. It decided following social worker 1’s enquiries there was little evidence to suggest A was at risk of harm and A was no longer having any contact with Mr Y. The Council decided to end its section 47 investigation and decided to carry out a single assessment which was carried out by social worker 1.
25. The police decided to take no further action against Mr Y in relation to their investigation.
26. Between October 2016 and December 2016 social worker 1 gathered evidence and information for the single assessment. Social worker 1 considered information from the police investigation, information from A’s school, and relevant medical evidence. Social worker 1 spoke to Ms X and obtained her thoughts and concerns about A. Social worker 1 also spoke to Mr Y and his new partner and considered A’s wider family including their paternal grandparents. Social worker 1 recorded and considered A’s views and wishes.
27. In December 2016, Ms X complained to the Council about social worker 1. Ms X said throughout her interaction with social worker 1 they were insensitive and lacked empathy. Ms X said social worker 1 shouted at A during their interaction which is why A was reluctant to disclose full details. Ms X said she had asked social worker 1 for therapy and support on at least three occasions but had received nothing. The case records showed the Council called Ms X in response to the complaint and as a result of Ms X’s concerns, it allocated a new social worker, social worker 2 to finish the single assessment.
28. The Council completed the single assessment in December 2016. The assessment found no evidence that A was at risk of harm. The assessment showed Ms X would refuse any contact between A and Mr Y. The assessment recommended Ms X consider renewing A’s contact with the wider family, especially their paternal grandparents. It recommended Ms X work with A’s school around A’s emotional and behavioural development. The Council decided there were no further identified needs, so it closed the case and ended its involvement with A.
29. In April 2018 Ms X said A began experiencing difficulties at school and ongoing anxiety at home, and as a result started to receive therapy sessions from an agency. The agency helping A asked Ms X for a copy of A’s single assessment document. Ms X had not obtained a copy of the assessment in 2016 so asked the Council to provide her with a copy. Ms X said that was the first time she had read the assessment.
30. In June 2018, Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X complained the Council did not provide her with a copy of the assessment in 2016. Ms X said the assessment contained factual errors and inaccuracies and wanted the opportunity to rectify those errors. Ms X asked why social worker 1 had signed the assessment form after the Council said it would replace her with a new social worker. Ms X complained further about the conduct of social worker 1 in 2016 and asked why the Council did not respond to her complaint about social worker 1 in 2016.
31. The Council responded to Ms X at stage 1 in July 2018. The Council said social worker 1 did not continue to work on the assessment following Ms X’s complaint in 2016 and confirmed social worker 2 finalised the assessment. The Council said it had no records to indicate Ms X requested a copy of the assessment in 2016. It said its practice at the time was not to provide copies of single assessments unless there was a specific request. The Council said that practice had now changed and it now offers the assessment to families.
32. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The Council invited Ms X to a meeting to discuss her complaints. Ms X told the Council the content of the single assessment was incorrect and contained social worker 1’s personal opinions rather than fact. Ms X asked for the opportunity to rectify the assessment. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it would not allow any rectifications of the assessment because it was true and correct at the time it was documented. The Council said it had followed the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance on the matter and referred Ms X to the ICO if she continued to disagree.
33. In September 2018 Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman asked the Council to consider dealing with Ms X’s complaints at stage 2 of the statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council agreed and appointed an investigating officer and an independent person who agreed 13 complaints with Ms X.
34. The investigator completed the stage 2 report in February 2019. The investigator upheld 4 complaints, partially upheld 3 complaints, did not uphold 5 complaints and found 1 complaint inconclusive. The investigator found the Council should have provided Ms X with a copy of the single assessment in 2016 and did not properly handle her complaint in 2016 and then again in 2018. However, the investigator found both social worker 1 and social worker 2 carried out the single assessment in line with relevant guidance, and did not agree the it was flawed or failed to safeguard A. The investigator found no conduct issues in respect of social worker 1. The investigator recommended the Council apologise for the upheld and partially upheld complaints and complete relevant service improvements.
35. Following the conclusion of the stage 2 investigation, the Council considered the report and wrote to Ms X in February 2019 with its adjudication letter. The Council agreed with most of the investigator’s findings. The Council upheld the complaints around its handling of Ms X’s stage 2 escalation. The Council apologised for the distress Ms X experienced from it failing to follow its complaint policies and for failing to provide her with an adequate stage 1 response. The Council said it would carry out complaint handling training with staff in its children’s services department and remind staff and managers of the need to provide families with details of agencies who provide counselling. The Council acknowledged it could have done more to assist with Ms X’s requests for counselling. The Council offered Ms X a payment of £300 to recognise her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
36. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. She declined to ask the Council to progress her complaint to stage 3 of the statutory process and instead complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

The stage 2 investigation

37. Where complaints have completed the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the complaint itself. The exception would be where there was evidence of fault in how the stage 2 or stage 3 were conducted.
38. The statutory complaints procedure sets out timescales for the process. The Council took 98 days to complete the stage 2 investigation which is longer than that set out in the guidance. However, Ms X added new elements to her complaint in October which the investigator considered. Therefore, I do not find any fault for the delay at stage 2.
39. The stage 2 investigation found elements of fault by the Council. Following the stage 2 investigation Ms X asked the Ombudsman to consider specific elements of her complaint which she was still dissatisfied with. While the stage 2 investigation was not fundamentally flawed, I have reached some different conclusions to that of the investigator. I have also reviewed some of Ms X’s specific concerns with regards to the stage 2 investigation.

Council’s failure to provide counselling and therapy for A in 2016

40. The stage 2 investigation partially upheld this aspect of Ms X’s complaint on the basis that although the Council did not respond to Ms X’s requests, it said Ms X limited the Council’s access to A. The investigator said that limited the Council’s ability to assess A’s level of need and therefore partially upheld that element of the complaint. The Council agreed with the investigator in its adjudication letter. Having considered the available information, I have reached a different conclusion.
41. The records identified two occasions where Ms X asked the Council for counselling and therapy for A in 2016. As noted by the investigator there are no records to support the Council took any action in respect of those requests or signposted Ms X to relevant services. I would have expected the social worker to have documented and recorded the reasons why they required access to A to provide advice on counselling if that was the case. I would also have expected the social worker to have recorded that any limited access to A prevented them from assisting with Ms X’s request. There are no such records available to me. Therefore, I find the Council at fault for failing to provide advice and counselling for A when Ms X requested it. That caused her upset and uncertainty.

Social worker 1’s involvement in the single assessment

42. The stage 2 investigation found social worker 1 did not continue with or finalise the single assessment following Ms X’s complaint about them in 2016. The investigator said although the single assessment document was not clear who finalised the assessment, the records did in fact show the Council removed social worker 1 from the case in 2016 and asked social worker 2 to complete it. On that basis, the investigator did not uphold the complaint.
43. The records do show evidence that social worker 2 finalised the single assessment in 2016, and the Council did remove social worker 1 from the case. However, there is nothing within the single assessment document which showed social worker 2 had any involvement in the assessment. The document shows social worker 1’s name as the social worker who worked on the case and not social worker 2’s. The assessment should have clearly shown it was finalised by social worker 2. It does not, therefore the Council was at fault and caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty.

Social worker 1 tried to make Ms X give Mr Y access to A during the single assessment

44. The stage 2 investigation found no evidence any social worker tried to make Ms X give Mr Y access to A. I have reviewed the available records and cannot find any evidence to support this complaint. Ms X said the requests from social worker 1 were made during phone calls, however there are no records of the phone calls. It is not possible to make a finding on this element of the complaint.

The Council provided Mr Y with a copy of the single assessment in 2016

45. The stage 2 investigation found no record of the Council providing Mr Y with a copy of the single assessment in 2016. I have reviewed the available records and have found no evidence the Council provided Mr Y with a copy of the single assessment. Ms X has no evidence to support her claim, therefore on balance I find the Council did not provide Mr Y with a copy of the assessment and was not at fault.

The single assessment was biased, unfair and full of social worker 1’s personal judgements

46. The stage 2 investigation did not find the single assessment biased and said it was carried out in line with the relevant guidance. Ms X said the assessment contains statements about things which were untrue or did not happen.
47. I was not there so I cannot make a finding on what was or was not said. However, the information in the assessment and relevance of it is the professional judgement of the social worker completing it. The purpose of the single assessment was to ensure A was safe and that Ms X could safeguard the child. There was no fault in the social worker using their personal judgements to make that decision.
48. Ms X has asked the Council to consider her request to rectify the single assessment, which it has declined. The Council has referred Ms X to the ICO if she remains unhappy with that decision who is best placed to consider such matters.

The single assessment and its content failed to safeguard A

49. The stage 2 investigator’s opinion was that the assessment was not flawed and did not fail to safeguard A. The primary aim of the assessment was to ensure A was safe and Ms X could meet their needs. Ms X said the assessment lacked empathy and as a result created an unsafe environment for A.
50. The single assessment found Ms X could safeguard A and the Council did not need to take any further action. Ms X did not disagree with the outcome of the assessment but some of the content of it. The social workers carried out the assessment in line with relevant guidance and used their professional opinion to come to that decision. As there was no fault in how it carried out the assessment, the Council did not fail to safeguard A. The Council was not at fault.

Injustice and impact on Ms X

51. Following the stage 2 investigation, the Council apologised for the instances where it concluded its services had failed and accepted the matter had caused Ms X significant emotional distress. The Council accepted it failed to provide Ms X with access to the single assessment, and it failed to adequately deal with her complaints at stage 1. As outlined in paragraph 35, the Council explained the service improvements it would make. The Council has provided evidence it has already carried out those service improvements in relation to complaint handling. The Council offered Ms X a payment of £300.
52. This investigation has found the Council at fault for:
• failing to adequately respond to Ms X’s request for counselling and therapy for A; and
• failing to properly record the change of social worker on the single assessment.
53. The Council offered Ms X a payment of £300. That is a satisfactory remedy to recognise the upset caused by its poor complaint handling and for failing to provide her with a copy of the single assessment. I have recommended a further payment to remedy the injustice caused to by the further faults I have found in this investigation.

Agreed action

54. The Council agreed within one of the final decision to:
• pay Ms X £300 originally offered in recognition of the upset, frustration and time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling and its failure to provide Ms X with a copy of the single assessment.
• apologise and pay Ms X a further £100 in recognition of the upset and subsequent uncertainty it caused by failing to make clear the change of social worker on the single assessment, and failing to respond to her request for counselling and therapy for A.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

56. I did not investigate the Council’s handling of Ms X’s request to rectify the single assessment. The Council had already referred Ms X to the ICO who is better placed to deal with such matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman