Summary: Mr C complains at how the Council has responded to concerns raised about the welfare of his daughters. We uphold this complaint, finding some fault in two assessments it undertook. The Council also failed to follow its policy when Mr C asked if he could record a meeting. These faults caused injustice to Mr C as distress and adding to his time and trouble. The Council has agreed action to remedy the complaint, explained at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr C’. He complains about the Council’s response, via its Children’s Services, to concerns raised about the welfare of his daughters. Mr C complains the Council:

• Failed to adequately investigate reports about the behavior of the children’s mother (Ms D) towards them, including the use of physical force.
• Made its decisions with a bias against him. It made him the focus of its enquiries and investigation. It produced assessments containing false or inappropriate information. For example, wrongly accusing him of seeking to control Ms D or inappropriately referring to a past medical history of mental illness. It did not visit him during times when he cared for his children, so the Council could see how he parented and engaged with them.
• Inappropriately threatened sanctions against him when he complained about its actions.
• Failed to follow its complaint procedures.

2. Mr C says the Council’s treatment of him has triggered a decline in his mental health, causing depression. He would like a further, independent and impartial investigation into the concerns raised about his children’s welfare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. 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. 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

6. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information or comments he provided. This included comments gathered in telephone conversations with him. It also included notes sent by an advocate who attended a meeting with him and the Council in September 2018.
• Information provided by the Council in response to written enquiries.
• Relevant law and guidance as referred to in the text below.
• Comments made by Mr C and the Council in response to a draft decision statement which set out my provisional thinking.

Back to top

What I found

Background – key law and guidance

7. The Council’s children’s services will not become involved in the family life of all children in its area. This is because all children benefit from ‘universal services’ provided by other agencies including schools, health visitors and GPs.
8. The Children’s Act 1989 sets out the circumstances where a council may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law places an overarching duty on the Council to act in the best interests of the child.
9. The Council may receive referrals from third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. These are made under ‘safeguarding’ procedures; a set of policies and procedures used by agencies such as schools to report concerns for a child’s welfare.
10. The Hertfordshire Safeguarding Children Board publishes detailed procedures explaining how the Council will treat such referrals. Some referrals engage Section 47 of the Children’s Act. This provides for the Council to respond to concerns a child may be at risk of ‘significant harm’. In turn, this covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
11. Section 47 of the Children’s Act allows the Council to make enquiries with all agencies who work with a child and the family. This includes agencies such as GPs, health visitors or schools. Social workers should also see the child as soon as possible. Once the Council completes this initial assessment it can take a range of actions. At one end of the spectrum it can close a case where it finds no grounds to substantiate concerns and no reason to take any other action. At the opposite end of the spectrum it could act to place a child into its care. In between, it has a range of choices including carrying out a detailed assessment of children’s needs. This might lead it to offer services under Section 17 of the Children’s Act.
12. Section 17 refers to services children’s services must provide to ‘children in need’. A ‘child in need’ is one who “is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”. This is because their “health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision […] of such services” or if they are disabled.
13. Where a Council receives a referral suggesting a child may meet this definition it must carry out an assessment of need. Once completed the Council must decide how to meet any needs and if it needs to offer services to the family.
14. The Children’s Act also provides for a complaint procedure where a child or young person is unhappy with the actions of Council’s children’s services. Complaints can also be made on behalf of a child or young person. This statutory complaint procedure is set out in Regulations and supported by guidance contained in a publication entitled “Getting the Best from Complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others”.
15. The statutory procedure has three stages. Stage one provides the Council a chance to resolve a complaint informally. If the Council cannot do this, then at stage two it must appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP), who oversees the investigation. The IO produces a report with their findings and the IP produces a report commenting on the investigation. The Council must then respond to that.
16. If a complainant remains unhappy they can then ask for a stage three review. A panel made up of three people independent of the Council hears the review. The panel will consider the grounds for dissatisfaction with the outcome of the stage two investigation and may recommend the Council take further action.
17. ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ explains that local authorities have discretion to use the procedure where they receive complaints from adults “that relate to a child or young person but not made on their behalf”. The Council should consider if an individual complaining “has sufficient interest in the child’s welfare to justify his own complaint being considered” by it.
18. If the Council decides it is not appropriate to investigate a complaint using the statutory procedure. It should also have a corporate complaint procedure. In this case, the Council’s website describes its corporate complaint procedure as follows. “For most services:

• We'll acknowledge your complaint or comment within 3 working days.
• We'll send you a full reply within 2 weeks (10 working days).
• If it's going to take us longer to look into your complaint, we'll let you know within 2 weeks (10 working days)” (emphasis as per original).

19. The Council website does not explain if the procedure has more than one stage. Under the page explaining children’s services procedures it describes the three stages I summarised above. It also says it will carry out a senior management review between Stages 1 and 2, described as “a re-evaluation of the complaint and response at Stage 1 of the complaints procedure”.

The key facts

The Council’s initial involvement November 2017 to January 2018

20. Mr C has two children, I will call ‘X’ and ‘Y’, aged 11 and 9 years old respectively. Y is disabled and has special educational needs. Mr C is separated from Ms D, who is the mother of X and Y. Mr C now lives with another partner and has two children with her. Mr C’s divorce agreement with Ms D allows him unrestricted contact with his children. The children spend approximately equal time with both parents, although there is no set pattern to this.
21. In November 2017, the Council received a referral from the Headteacher at X’s school. It said X reported Ms D scratching her face during an argument with her, leaving “two specific marks” on X’s face. The referral said there were tensions between Mr C and Ms D, which may be impacting on life at home.
22. The Council did not consider the referral raised any concern that X was at risk of significant harm. But the Council considered it should carry out an assessment of need for X and Y. It allocated the case to a social worker to undertake this. As part of their assessment the Council’s social worker met with Ms D, Mr C and spoke to both children and their schools.
23. The social worker’s notes of their meeting with Ms D show they put to her the suggestion she had scratched X’s face. But there is no record the social worker put to her other allegations about use of physical force (see paragraph 24). The social worker recorded Ms D’s views on her relationship with Mr C and his relationship with the children. Separate comments made by the School Headteacher supported her view of the relationship. The comments suggested Mr C may try to exert control over the children at times against Ms D’s wishes.
24. In their meeting with the social worker, X repeated that Ms D had scratched her and mentioned other incidents where Ms D had hit her. X also said that Ms D often shouted at her. The social work notes suggest that due to her disability Y could contribute little information to the assessment.
25. In a first meeting with the social worker, Mr C also reported Ms D would sometimes hit X or lose her temper with her. He said he believed Ms D struggled to set boundaries with X. He said Ms D’s actions towards X also caused distress to Y. Mr C denied any suggestion his actions caused distress to his children. In their notes of this meeting the Council social worker recorded that Mr C appeared hostile towards social services. They also recorded on several occasions challenging Mr C about why he had not removed his children from Ms D’s care if concerned for their welfare.
26. In a second meeting with the social worker it was put to Mr C that he had threatened to take X and Y out of the country. The Council put this to Mr C as it received third party information suggesting this threat had been made in the past. Mr C denied the allegation and pointed out he had regularly taken his children abroad for holidays. He has provided me receipts for air tickets which show this. They also show he has paid for Ms D to go abroad with the children.
27. The social work assessment said that Mr C exerted controlling behaviours and he “used [X] to implement his control”. The assessment did not specify what behaviours the author had in mind. It noted X would contact Mr C by phone when in dispute with Ms D. The Council suggested both Mr C and Ms D needed to recognise the impact of their behaviour on their children.
28. The Council did not consider it needed to provide services. It proposed ‘stepping down’ their case to one where the children would simply continue to receive universal services. It convened a ‘team around the family’ meeting in January 2018, chaired by a consultant social worker, to discuss this proposal. That meeting also considered what specific services Mr C, Ms D and X could access in the community to support them. It recommended Mr C engage with a ‘caring dads’ programme. It said Mr C should look at ways he could support Ms D’s parenting “without contradicting or working against her”. The meeting notes recorded Mr C did not accept the “impact of his behaviour on [his] children”.

The Council’s involvement between January and September 2018

29. In mid-January 2018 Mr C complained at the Council’s assessment described above and senior officers met with him to discuss this. Mr C did not consider the assessment had properly considered the allegations made about Ms D’s behaviour. He said there were inaccuracies in the assessment. He also expressed concern at comments made by X’s Headteacher. The Council says in response it agreed to carry out a fresh assessment of X and Y’s needs.
30. At around the same time the Council also decided it needed to make further enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. I noted this followed further contact between the Council and X and Y’s schools and their GP. These discussions considered a series of injuries X had received to her arm or wrist. A strategy meeting received evidence from the X’s school saying it had a record that X reported Ms D ‘pulling her arm’ on occasion. The School said it did not believe any injuries occurred while X was at school. The Council also received reports from police of two recent contacts from X. One reporting that her mother had shouted at her. A second that her mother had used force on her, bending her fingers back.
31. The Council appointed a different social worker to carry out further enquiries and complete the further assessment.
32. The second social worker met with X. She described the incidents which led her to contact police including that where she said Ms D bent her fingers back. She described other occasions where Ms D had shouted at her and two occasions where she said Ms D had scratched her face. But X said the occasions where she had hurt her arm or wrist were accidents. The social worker reported X telling her that Mr C had told her to contact the police if being told to do things she did not want to do. For example, on one occasion when she did not want to go to the shops with Ms D. X said the police had told her she had wasted their time. X told the social worker she decided when she wanted contact with both parents. She indicated consistently wanting to spend more time with Mr C. The social worker also met with Y, although she could again contribute little to the assessment.
33. The social worker went on to meet with Ms D who also said the injuries arose because of unconnected accidents. She denied using physical force against X. Ms D again set out her view of her relationship with Mr C.
34. Next, the social worker met with Mr C. Their notes said Mr C had lost faith in the Council and noted his complaint about its earlier investigation. He was also unhappy with information given to the Council by X and Y’s schools. Mr C again set out his concerns with Ms D’s parenting. Particularly how she treated X. Mr C said Ms D could not manage X’s behaviour and resorted to shouting or losing her temper. He also reportedly said Ms D’s house was unclean and she had previously locked the children inside. Mr C reported having a close relationship with X and speaking to her by telephone when she stayed with Ms D at around 10pm at night. The social worker reported challenging Mr C on this point, saying X should be in bed. There is no record the social worker asked Mr C about X’s contacts with the police.
35. A few days later the social worker made a second visit to Mr C’s home. They said that because X and Y spent time at his home the assessment also needed to consider the welfare of Ms C’s youngest child and a yet unborn child expected by Mr C’s partner. Mr C and his partner refused to give consent for this.
36. The social worker later tried to visit Mr C at home again, this time accompanied by a colleague. Mr C refused them access.
37. As part of their enquiries, the Council also gathered information from X’s GP. This also did not suggest that X’s injuries to her arm or wrist arose from anything other than accidents. It also obtained details of Mr C’s medical history.
38. Further to the above, the Council concluded its Section 47 enquiries finding no evidence the injuries X sustained resulted from deliberate physical harm. The social worker’s conclusions said neither X nor Y had “disclosed any physical chastisement”. In their summary, they noted Ms D shouted at X which could affect her emotional wellbeing. They said part of the cause for this was that Mr C encouraged her not to conform to Ms D’s boundaries. The assessment said, “it is evident” Mr C involved X in “parental conflict”. It said Mr C had shared with X the previous assessment undertaken by the Council which was inappropriate. It said he lacked insight over his influence on X. It said Mr C had control over contact, which was inconsistent.
39. Around a month later the Council completed the child and family assessment for X and Y. The assessment repeated much of the information gathered as part of the Section 47 enquiries. It reported concern that inconsistent contact arrangements might adversely affect Y given her disability. The Council also said it had concern the children might be at risk of emotional harm due to “being exposed to parents’ conflict and acrimony”. The assessment also included information about Mr D’s past treatment for mental health illness between 2001 and 2012. The assessment noted the Council had not explored this information with Mr D because he had broken off engagement with it.
40. In a section marked “analysis of information gathered” the Council found:

• No evidence that neglect or lack of supervision by Ms D contributed to X’s arm or wrist injuries.
• That X and Y had not disclosed any physical chastisement. It noted reports that Ms D shouted at X. But said X was influenced by her father not to respect her boundaries. It said Mr C also involved X inappropriately in adult conversation.
• That both parents had made allegations about the other’s behaviour. For example, around immigration or money issues.
• That contact was inconsistent with control given to X about when she saw each parent.
• That both X and Y were at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to their parents’ conflict and acrimony. That Mr C took no responsibility for the family situation and blamed services including the Council for this.

41. In a section marked ‘risk factors/concerns’ the assessment repeated some of the above. It said Mr C had told X to report her mother to the police “if she does not agree with whatever her mother is asking her to do”. It also listed Mr C’s past diagnosis of mental illness
42. The Council recommended continuing to work with the family under a ‘Child in Need’ plan. The Council proceeded to draw up such a plan in May 2018. The plan put in place steps to support both X and Ms D individually. It also recommended Mr C and Ms D:

• engage in domestic abuse work to understand impact of their behaviours on children;
• undertake a parenting assessment to consider consistent and appropriate boundaries;
• take legal advice on future living arrangements;
• arrange future contact in a consistent way.

43. It also recommended Mr C consider a referral to a mental health visitor or worker and re-engage with the Child in Need process and other services.
44. Mr C attended a meeting with the Council in May 2018 to discuss the plan. The Council recorded Mr C reluctant to engage with the meeting or the proposed plan. He cited a lack of trust of the Council. However, the minutes went on to record discussion around several issues. Mr C denied telling X to report her mother to the police if she disagreed with something she said. He said he told X to go to the police if terrified of her mother. The Council queried if the children were terrified. There was discussion around the extent Ms D set boundaries for the children or told them to seek Mr C’s permission for activities. Mr C denied trying to control them.
45. Mr C attended a further meeting with the Council in September 2018. The Council advised it was closing its case. Mr C notes this followed an earlier email it sent him in July signalling its intention to do so. The Council says it closed the case because i professionals did not have concerns for the children’s welfare. It also said that X no longer wanted to work with social workers. Mr C also withheld consent for his children to work with the Council. Mr C continued to express his concerns around Ms D’s parenting and his view the Council had a personal vendetta towards him. Mr C raised a recent incident where X had come to his house in the early hours of the morning following an argument with Ms D, whom she said had hit her and smashed her mobile phone. Mr C said he continued to want the Council to work with his children but to remain impartial and professional. Mr C attended the meeting with an Advocate who has also sent me their note of the meeting. They have suggested that Mr C’s concerns indicate the children remain at risk of emotional harm and suggest the Council should engage child advocates for them both. The Council refused Mr C’s request to record the meeting. The Council recognises this was contrary to a written policy it introduced in February 2018 allowing recording subject to certain assurances from the parent wanting to record the meeting.

Mr C’s complaint

46. In January 2018 Mr C made his first complaint, following the Council’s initial involvement with the family which I described above. The Council agreed to re-open its assessment taking account of Mr C’s concerns and this resulted in the second assessment of need. The Council’s response to this initial correspondence also told Mr C he could record meetings with officers, subject to “exploration, notice and signing a contract with parental responsibility”.
47. After the Section 47 enquiries began Mr C made a further complaint, centred around the actions of the second social worker appointed to the case. This included complaints about her conduct at visits to his home.
48. In April 2018, the Council carried out what it described as a ‘senior management review’ into Mr C’s complaints. It recognised not exploring the cause of injury to X’s arm during its initial assessment. It accepted that it could have handled visits to Mr C better but defended the outcome of that assessment. It said the Council had no record of contact with the police in 2014, something Mr C questioned after obtaining records from the police which suggested the opposite. It recognised there had been some confusion around Mr C’s right to record meetings and sharing records. The Council said Mr C had not received any unfair treatment because of his race or religion.
49. A second senior management review followed in May 2018, which concerned Mr C’s complaints about its Section 47 enquiries. This upheld the Council’s earlier findings that it had not acted with fault in its investigation of Mr C’s concerns.
50. In between receiving these two replies Mr C contacted the Council by telephone. The Council said during a call with its staff he behaved unacceptably in ‘demanding’ to speak to one of its senior officers. It said Mr C spent around 45 minutes on the telephone being aggressive and abusive. It also said it was only at the end of the call, Mr C told officers he had recorded it. The Council said its complaints service would accept no further telephone calls from Mr C but he could continue to write or email. Mr C strongly denies the Council’s account of this call. He has not provided his recording of the conversation and the Council did not make any recording.
51. At the end of May 2018, in response to further communications from Mr C, the Council said he should escalate his complaint to this office.
52. In a further letter sent to Mr C in June 2018 the Council defended the conduct of its Child in Need review meeting held in May 2018 (see paragraph 44). Its letter said the Council did not want to see Mr C “have a breakdown, be in jail or stop you having a relationship with your children”. It said the Council needed to have “safe interactions” with him and he should not place his children at risk of significant harm. Mr C said he found the tone of the letter threatening and unacceptable.
53. The Council has said that its investigation of Mr C’s complaint did not engage the Children’s Act complaint procedures I described above. It says this is because while the complaint related to his children, it concerned allegations of bias against him. It therefore said the complaint fell under its corporate complaint procedure. The Council also says that it based this decision on the understanding that no investigation of Mr C’s complaint would result in a different outcome.
54. The Council describes on its website that a senior management review falls under ‘Stage One’ of the Children’s Act complaint procedure. The Council considers the use of a review consistent with advice in ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ which advises local authorities should not end attempts to resolve a complaint once made. The Council says it can also carry out such a review under its corporate complaint procedure.

Findings

The Council’s involvement between November 2017 and January 2018

55. I do not consider the Council was at fault for not considering X or Y at significant risk of harm, when it first received a report of X suffering a non-accidental injury. I considered the Council’s judgment to begin an assessment into whether X and Y were children in need a reasonable and proportionate response. This was after taking account of the severity of the reported injury and that X’s school did not indicate any significant concerns for her care by either parent.
56. But there was fault in how the Council then undertook that assessment. I make no criticism of the Council exploring views expressed during the assessment which may have suggested concerns other than those giving rise to the initial referral. For example, any suggestion Mr C’ s actions might contribute to tensions between Ms D and X. Social workers must go where the evidence leads them.
57. So, I did not consider it was fault for the Council to have put to Mr C the suggestion he may have threatened to remove his children from the country. I am satisfied there was no further evidence to suggest a basis for the allegation. Clearly Mr C has taken his children out of the country several times for family holidays. So, there was no corroboration for the allegation he had threatened to remove the children from the UK permanently. I understand why Mr C became affronted at the allegation. But it was not an invention of the Council, having seemingly received the suggestion at the time in good faith. Having put the allegation to him, I saw no evidence the Council then put any weight on it when it later came to making decisions about the case.
58. Nor was it fault for the Council to put forward views in its assessment that Mr C might disagree with. I consider the Council could reasonably set out concerns that parental conflict might lead to harm to X and Y. It could reasonably propose that Mr C might want to work voluntarily to support Ms D in her parenting and help set consistent boundaries.
59. But I note the Council only became involved in this case because X had marks to her face reportedly caused by Ms D scratching her. She went on to disclose other occasions where she said her mother used physical force against her. I found that no record appeared in the case papers of the social worker putting the majority of these allegations to Ms D.
60. That is a clear fault as while the assessment may have contained other relevant information, it was undermined by the failure to follow this relevant line of enquiry. Mr C’s faith in any involvement by the Council in his family’s affairs could only be undermined by such an omission. It made it less likely he would be willing to engage in constructive dialogue around his own parenting or in making a child in need plan work. It gave a clear suggestion of bias, as concerns about Mr C’s parenting received closer scrutiny than those around Ms D.
61. I also considered the assessment contained a lack of evidence for the assertion that Mr C sought to ‘implement control’ over Ms D. Any evidence for this presumably lay in the social worker’s evaluation of the statements given to them by Ms D, Mr C or others when seeking views to inform the assessment. But the social worker did not say what evidence they had in mind. Making such a statement without reasons was also fault.
62. The faults caused injustice to Mr C. Because the assessment indicated bias it undermined trust between Mr C and the Council. It caused unnecessary distress. It potentially also undermined support that should have been in place for X and Y because services to children in need hinge on the consent of parents to accepting that support.
63. In the section headed ‘agreed action’ below I explain what the Council will do to remedy this injustice.

The Council’s involvement between January and September 2018

64. I give the Council some credit that when Mr C first complained about its involvement in events above it appeared to recognise the omission I highlighted in paragraph 59. It then noted X’s series of arm or wrist injuries. I make no criticism that this time therefore the Council decided to use Section 47 of the Children’s Act to make its enquiries as well as complete a fresh assessment.
65. I also consider the Council reached a reasonable judgment at the end of those enquiries that neither X nor Y were at significant risk of harm. There was no fault in its finding that X had not sustained non-accidental injuries or that any lack of supervision by Ms D contributed to those. That was a finding it could reasonably make on the evidence gathered. It did not overlook any relevant evidence suggesting a contrary finding. It was also reasonable for the Council to offer services to the family under Section 17 of the Children’s Act, considering X and Y children in need.
66. I recognise the Council then encountered difficulties engaging with Mr C around this work. He has challenged the approach taken by the Council and its statements, even where those appear reasonable. For example, where the Council has put to Mr C that X and Y may benefit from a more stable contact regime. Or that conflict between the parents could negatively affect the children.
67. These were difficult areas for the Council to explore with Mr C and it clearly started from a position where he had little trust with it at the outset, given the earlier experience. So, I do not underestimate the challenges faced by the Council in completing its April 2018 assessment. I consider this lack of trust and resulting co-operation also helps explain why certain matters contained in the Council’s second assessment were not discussed with Mr C in advance. For example, the statements attributed about why X had contacted the police on occasion. Or the record of Mr C’s mental health illness.
68. It flows from what I have said above that I consider much of the second assessment of need can be held as reflecting the reasonably held views of the Council’s social worker. Mr C may disagree with passages but that is not grounds for me to uphold his complaint.
69. However, there are still flaws within the second assessment also. I note the social worker recorded Ms D did not use ‘physical chastisement’ against X. As a statement of fact, I consider this correct as there is no suggestion X has ever faced routine physical chastisement as a punishment. But I am concerned that once again the Council did not appear to engage with the repeated suggestions that Ms D had used physical force against X at times of conflict with her. I note those concerns are not just expressed by Mr C, but from X herself.
70. I am also concerned the Council appeared to shift the responsibility for Ms D’s actions on to Mr C, saying that he encouraged X not to keep to boundaries set by her mother. This does not appear in any notes of the interviews the Council had with X. In fact, she consistently stated her mother did not set clear boundaries. This appears therefore more as a speculative conclusion than one based on fact.
71. I can understand why in its assessment and proposed plan the Council still wanted Mr C to work with Ms D to find solutions to the conflict between her and X. I consider it logical the Council should want to help both parents reduce any tensions between them. This would be in the overarching interests of their children. For example, in having consistent contact arrangements or in agreeing an approach should X disagree with Ms D.
72. But the Council was always going to struggle to create a working relationship with Mr C given its response to the consistent allegations of Ms D’s use of physical force against his daughter. I explained above how the first assessment gave a clear suggestion of bias by not exploring this subject. The same applies to the second assessment notwithstanding what I have said above about many of its conclusions appearing reasonable.
73. It is also clearly implicit in the proposed child in need plan the Council considered Mr C needed support with his mental health. I understand the information the Council obtained about Mr C’s past illness was factually accurate. I understand the Council may have welcomed Mr C’s views on whether he needed any mental health support. But there was no evidence to assume this from the papers I have read. I consider it was fault therefore for the Council to suggest Mr C should seek help for mental illness in its plan when it had not discussed this with him. It could not draw that conclusion on the evidence it held.
74. These faults also caused injustice to Mr C. Because the assessment again indicated bias it further undermined trust between Mr C and the Council. It caused unnecessary distress. Again, it also potentially undermined support that should have been in place for X and Y because services to children in need hinge on the consent of parents to accepting that support.
75. However, I do note that before the second assessment even began Mr C had not recovered trust in the Council. His actions suggest that carrying out any further assessment would have been challenging for the Council, including assessing any parenting with his children (something the Council later wanted to assess). Had it received more co-operation from Mr C then I consider at least the suggestion he needed support for his mental health may have been avoided.

The Council’s complaint handling

76. I find further fault in the Council’s handling of Mr C’s complaint. The Council correctly says Mr C’s complaint did not automatically engage the Children’s Act complaint procedure. It was not made directly on behalf of Children X or Y. It focused on the Council being unfair towards him.
77. But Mr C’s complaints were made in the context of the Council’s involvement in his family life, arising from concerns about his children’s welfare. Put simply, Mr C’s complaints alleged the Council put too much weight on concerns about his parenting and not enough on the concerns about Ms D. His complaints implied that this flaw not only affected him but also the decisions taken about his children.
78. In which case, the Council had discretion to consider Mr C’s complaint under the Children’s Act procedure. I consider that in cases where alleged fault by the Council may have impacted on its decisions affecting children, the Council should consider using such discretion. Doing so in this case would have introduced an independent element into the Council’s consideration of Mr C’s complaint. So, it could also have helped diffused some of the tension present, arising from Mr C’s perceived unfair treatment. It may have helped the Council when carrying out its second assessment.
79. I also do not consider it is the case that any independent investigation would not have led to a different outcome given the faults I have found outlined above. The Council cannot second-guess the outcome of complaint investigations however confident it is in its decision making.
80. While I do not make a finding of fault therefore, I would urge the Council to consider adopting a different approach to any similar cases in the future.
81. I also have concern about the Council’s use of a ‘senior management review’ when its receives complaints about its Children’s Services. I do not agree this is consistent with the advice quoted by the Council from ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’. That says the use of measures to resolve a complaint can continue “where any given stage [in the procedure] is ongoing”. A management review could therefore run alongside a Stage 2 investigation, but it cannot be used as a substitute for it. Having such a procedure effectively introduces an additional stage into the complaint procedure for those entitled to access it. It will build in delay to complaint investigations and so delay the independent oversight the procedure requires. While its use here caused no injustice to Mr C, in other cases involving complaints made or on behalf of children or young people, it would. I therefore urge the Council to also re-visit this aspect of its current policy.
82. I understand why the Council’s complaint service wanted to reconsider Mr C using telephone contact given its record of his call in May 2018 which caused distress for its staff. I note Mr C denies the Council’s account of the call, but in the absence of evidence showing exactly what was said and how Mr C appeared to the Council, I cannot say it was wrong to consider some sanction. However, it was poor administrative practice for the Council to have imposed such a sanction without reference to any policy used for such purposes. For example, a policy that explains what a Council will do if a complainant is unreasonably persistent in their contacts.
83. Such policies will provide benchmarks for the Council on what behaviour merits sanctions. It will also explain how long any restrictions in contact should last and when they will be reviewed. The Council could have given Mr C a date when it would review that decision. Although I note the Council only restricted Mr C’s contact with its complaint team and not any other services.
84. I considered the Council could also have chosen a different form of words in its comments in its letter of June 2018 referred to at paragraph 52. The statement quoted implied Mr C’s actions put him at risk of having a breakdown, going to prison or not seeing his children. While I accept Mr C’s conduct posed challenges to the Council at times, I saw no evidence to suggest he was at risk of any of these outcomes. But I do not find fault here. As I consider the comments open to interpretation. One of which is that the Council had concern also for Mr C’s welfare, which was not unreasonable.
85. Finally, I note the confusion during events covered by this complaint about whether Mr C had the right to record Council meetings. At first the Council said he did, certain to subject conditions, in accord with its policy. But, when Mr C asked to record a meeting he attended the Council said he could not, contrary to that policy. That was wrong and justifies a finding of fault against the Council. It should be able to offer both its staff and customers clear and consistent advice in this area. The confusion it caused added something to Mr C’s injustice in this case, as it has added unnecessary frustration.

Agreed action

86. The first principle used by the Ombudsman to remedy complaints is to put complainants back in the position that they should have been in but for any fault causing injustice. In this case I have therefore first considered if the Council should re-open its case and again re-assess whether Children X and Y need services. This is also following the incident raised by Mr C in his meeting with the Council in September 2018 where X reported Ms D being physically abusive and smashing her phone.
87. However, I consider on balance this is not merited. This is because the Council’s decision to end services in this case relied on several factors, including the views of other professionals and X’s views. Revisiting judgments mainly made 12 months ago or longer, would not result in those factors changing. I am also satisfied the Council took account of the incident reported in September 2018 in reaching its decision.
88. To remedy this complaint the Council has therefore agreed to the following. Within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr C accepting the findings of this investigation. It will also confirm that any restrictions on Mr C contacting the Council have now ended.
2. Pay Mr C £500 in recognition of his distress and time and trouble resulting from the Council’s faults.
3. Append a copy of this statement to its case records, so that in the event there is any future involvement by the Council with the family that these findings form part of the case record.
89. In addition, within three months of a decision on this complaint the Council will have taken steps to ensure that all relevant personnel are familiar with the policy it has for responding to requests from users of services to record visits, meetings or telephone calls.

Back to top

Final decision

90. For reasons explained above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr C. The Council has agreed action I consider will provide a fair remedy to the complaint. Consequently, I am satisfied I can now complete my investigation satisfied with its actions.
91. 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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman