London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (18 011 337)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 May 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss B complains about actions and decisions taken by the Council’s children’s services. We do not uphold all her complaints but find faults in the Council’s record keeping and some communications. These have caused distress to Miss B. The Council has agreed our findings and will provide a remedy for Miss B’s injustice, set out in detail at the end of this statement.

The complaint

  1. I have called the complainant, Miss B. She complains about actions and decisions taken by the Council’s Children’s Services during their involvement with her family life from March 2017. Specifically, Miss B complains:
  • That her son’s social worker was unprofessional. For example, Miss B says he was often late for meetings and did not communicate effectively with her.
  • That the Council wrongly considered the threshold met where it could start legal proceedings to take her son into care. Miss B considers the Council did not receive an accurate picture of the work she was undertaking to safeguard her son. Its actions also followed the death of another child through sudden infant death syndrome and were inappropriate.
  • That the Council did not do enough to support Miss B with unsuitable housing. It lost papers she provided to its social worker in support of needing to move.
  • That after it agreed a change of social worker in February 2018 the Council did not put suitable support in place for her and her son. In particular, it withdrew support from a family support worker who had helped Mrs B.
  • That is has not adequately investigated her complaints.
  1. Miss B says as a result she suffered distress; in particular, following the death of her youngest child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  3. 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)
  4. 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

  1. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:
  • Miss B’s written complaint to this organisation along with any supporting information she provided, including that gathered in telephone conversations with her.
  • Extensive information provided by the Council in response to written enquiries.
  • Relevant legal and administrative considerations.
  1. I also sent Miss B and the Council a copy of a draft decision statement and invited their comments. I considered any comments received before finalising this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Legal and Administrative Considerations

  1. The Children’s Act 1989 (‘the Act’) 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.
  2. Section 17 of the Act refers to services the Council 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 they are either disabled or their “health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision […] of such services”.
  3. 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 if it needs to offer services to the family and if so, how to provide those.
  4. Section 47 of the Act 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.
  5. A council can call a child protection conference if it believes a child is suffering or is likely to suffer such ‘significant harm’. For example, if they consider parents are not meeting the basic welfare needs of a child. Or if they believe a child witnesses parents in an abusive relationship and needs protection from witnessing domestic abuse.
  6. A child protection conference provides a chance for all professionals working with the child and their family to share information. It considers what action should be taken to keep the child safe and whether the child should be on a child protection plan. If a conference decides to put a child on a protection plan then further conferences will review this at regular intervals (typically three months). In between, professionals supporting the child and family may meet at what are known as ‘core group’ meetings. The purpose of core group meetings is to review progress against the child protection plan.
  7. The 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”.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. ‘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.

Background and chronology of events

  1. I have taken the beginning of events covered by this complaint as February 2017. The Council called an initial child protection conference (ICPC) because of concerns for the welfare of Miss B’s son, ‘D’, then aged 11 years old. Miss B was also pregnant expecting a second child. The Council knew that Miss B had been the victim of domestic abuse by D’s father, ‘Mr E’. The Council had concerns that Miss B could not protect D from the consequence of witnessing this. While Miss B had separated from Mr E, it received reports they were seen together. The conference agreed to place both D and the unborn child on a child protection plan. It considered D at risk of significant harm from emotional abuse and the unborn child at risk of physical abuse. Also of relevance to this complaint, I note the meeting recorded Miss B lived with D in a flat rented from the Council. The conference noted Miss B suffered some physical disability in her back and had a moderate depressive disorder.
  2. The child protection plan contained 14 action points. The plan expected Miss B work with services to support her in understanding the consequences of her relationship with Mr E and to protect her and her children from that. For example, it said she would seek an injunction to stop Mr E coming to her home. It also said the core group would identify a service offering support for victims of domestic violence and refer Miss B to that. The plan said Miss B and her children would receive support with relocation. The plan required Miss B staying engaged with services. The plan noted Miss B welcoming the support planned for. Other action points put expectation on Mr E to take action to address his behaviours.
  3. Once the child protection plan became effective, the Council asked Social Worker X to take on management of the case. On his first visit to the family home in late February 2017 Social Worker X reported some tension with Miss B, whom he reported saying that he had disrupted D’s usual routine. Social Worker X noted Miss B’s living conditions. He noted Miss B reported damp in her bedroom, meaning she could not sleep in there. Miss B slept in the living room instead.
  4. In March 2017 a duty social work undertook a visit on behalf of Social Worker X. They noted Miss B’s flat “in need of major repairs as there is quite a lot of damp in [Miss B’s] bedroom and there is cracked doors [and] damp ceiling in living room”.
  5. In April 2017 a pre-birth assessment reported Miss B’s house as “very smelly and stuffy”, a comment repeated several times in notes around the same time. The assessment said Miss B had responsibility to ensure her home was suitable and hygienic for the new child. The assessment also noted Miss B wanting to move from her home for medical reasons. The assessment expressed concern that Miss B did not have enough insight into the impact of domestic violence on D.
  6. During April 2017 an early intervention support worker, Officer Y, who had begun working with Miss B contacted Social Worker X to say Miss B was confused about contact between D and his father. I noted that in both internal emails and the note of a visit to Miss B and D in April 2017 Social Worker X recorded saying any contact should be supervised. But they gave no details of how contact should be supervised. In late April 2017 Miss B gave birth to her second child, F.
  7. In May 2017 Social Worker X completed a ‘single assessment’ to inform the next child protection conference, held later that month. It noted Miss B engaging with services. It confirmed she had sought an injunction against Mr E. It reported her working with professionals to identify a programme to support with domestic violence. Social Worker X said he had provided a supporting letter for Miss B’s request for re-housing. Social Worker X said Miss B’s engagement with services was positive. But he had concerns she might still reconcile with Mr E and that she shared adult conversations with D. He considered D and the unborn child should remain on a child protection plan.
  8. The Council has provided a copy of the social worker’s letter of support for Miss B’s rehousing. I also noted that from May 2017 onward Officer Y contacted housing services on behalf of Miss B requesting inspection of her property to look at outstanding repairs.
  9. The review child protection conference agreed to keep D and F on child protection plans. It noted difficulties in identifying a domestic violence support service close to Miss B and agreed that Officer Y would therefore work with Miss B to provide that support. The meeting discussed contact between Miss B and Mr E’s family. It also recorded a psychologist supporting Miss B that she was confused about what contact Mr E could have with D.
  10. A core group meeting held in July 2017 recorded that contact between Mr E and D was ‘on hold’. The notes also imply Social Worker X was waiting for advice from his managers. There was no further discussion about Miss B’s housing needs. In September 2017 the Core Group received advice that Officer Y would support Miss B in her contacts with its housing service. A note made by Social Worker X around that time reported Miss B’s flat as “clean and child friendly”.
  11. In August 2017 Miss B attended Court with Mr E. This followed his arrest when he entered Miss B’s home and she reported this to the police. This led to some breakdown in relations with her wider family. The Council had concerns about Miss B’s contacts with Mr E. By October 2017 it decided its concerns justified holding a legal planning meeting to decide if it should begin care proceedings. The social work notes say that Miss B was aware of the meeting.
  12. A further review child protection conference in November 2017 discussed Miss B’s housing situation. Miss B wanted to move but had advice there were no suitable properties for her to move to in the Borough. Miss B reported being annoyed that she lacked clarity about contact between Mr E and D, saying that she had to arrange it. The Council said that it did not think contact appropriate until Mr E had completed a risk assessment. Although, despite the assessment not completing the Council also said it would endorse contact. The Chair of the conference recorded this as “poor planning” which had “done [D] a disservice”.
  13. A note from early November 2018 from Social Worker X had described Miss B’s home as clean but cluttered. While one made shortly after the meeting by Officer Y said it was cluttered and smelt of cats.
  14. At the end of November 2017 F died unexpectedly. The cause of death was sudden infant child death syndrome. However, this was not confirmed until a post- mortem in February 2018. I found Council notes supported that Social Worker X contacted Miss B on the day F died. The Council had received report of the death via member of Miss B’s family. Social Worker X recorded contacting Miss B to find out what happened and speaking to her. They do not record how often he called before speaking to her.
  15. As soon as it knew of F’s death the Council called two strategy meetings in early December to decide if it need take further action to safeguard Child D. It had information from the police describing Miss B’s home as damp, cluttered and smelling of cats urine. One action point emerging from the meeting was that the Council should “liaise with urgency” with housing about the condition of the flat. I noted in January 2018 Officer Y made further enquiries with the Council housing services about damp conditions in the flat.
  16. The Council did not want D returning to the flat immediately given concerns about its condition. It asked instead that he and Miss B live with her family. It gave this as advice to Miss B initially and she agreed. It then asked her to sign a safeguarding agreement confirming the arrangement. The agreement also said any contact between D and Mr E be through Miss B’s family. Separately the Council also asked Miss B’s mother to sign a safeguarding agreement as Miss B and D moved in with her.
  17. The Council’s notes around this time recorded Miss B being initially unwilling to sign the agreement. They also recorded Miss B having some contact with Mr E. Miss B says she wanted more understanding about what concerns the Council had around the condition of the flat. She asked it share the police report, but says Social Worker X did not do so. Miss B also recognises the flat had contained several black bags of rubbish at the time F passed away. She says she could not remove this rubbish because of her back condition.
  18. Miss B signed the safeguarding agreement. But in early January 2018 the Council learnt she had returned to live at her home with D. A Core Group meeting discussed this development. The Council also held another legal meeting to consider taking care proceedings through the Courts. Miss B understood from her contacts with Social Worker X the Council would take care proceedings.
  19. In January 2018 Miss B relayed, via Officer Y, her continuing confusion around contact between Mr E and Child D. At the time she had meetings with Mr E to discuss funeral arrangements for F. In an email to Miss B Social Worker X said she must “keep us updated” and referred to her contacting the Council via her solicitor.
  20. In February 2018 the Council decided it would not pursue care proceedings and Social Worker X recorded telling Miss B this. Internal notes suggest this was after considering further its failure to complete assessments of Miss B and Mr E further to F passing away. Also after an independent reviewing officer pointed out the progress it recorded Miss B making before F died. Social Worker X recorded that Miss B as upset the Council had contemplated taking such proceedings.
  21. In March 2018 the Council agreed that Miss B could have a change of social worker. Social Worker Z took over Child D’s case management. The Council also resolved that Officer Y would no longer work with Miss B. A core group meeting reported Miss B working with a programme for victims of domestic violence and receiving bereavement counselling. Miss B also reported D no longer had face-to-face contact with Mr E, although they did have occasional telephone contact. Miss B was further referred to another specialist Council service for support. In April 2018 the Core Group recorded Miss B making further progress engaging with services, while waiting for support from the specialist service.
  22. In May 2018 the Core Group reconsidered contact between D and Mr E. It recommended indirect contact stop and recorded clear reasons for this. The meeting also recorded Miss B’s concern at working with the specialist service as well as the other work she undertook. This included the ongoing work on domestic violence, bereavement counselling and attending other appointments. The Council agreed that also working with the specialist service would be putting too much expectation on Miss B. So, it no longer expected her to do that.
  23. A review child protection conference noted these developments in June 2018. It continued to record Miss B making progress against the goals set out in the child protection plan. I have not considered events in detail after this time as I do not consider them central to Miss B’s complaint. But I noted from October 2018 the Council supported D coming off the child protection plan. It continued to work with Miss B and D using powers under Section 17 of the Children’s Act.

Miss B’s complaint to the Council

  1. In February 2018, Miss B made around 30 different allegations around Social Worker X’s contacts with her and D. For example, that he was late for meetings, cancelled them at short notice, failed to attend, failed to provide paperwork or return telephone calls. Miss B also said at times Social Worker X spoke inappropriately to D and rang her repeatedly the day F passed away.
  2. In its response to Miss B’s complaint the Council said that Social Worker X denied that he ever spoke inappropriately to D. It said he had visited frequently and appropriately given that both Miss B’s children were on child protection plans. It had no records of many of the specific allegations made by Miss B including one that Social Worker X had tried to telephone her repeatedly the day F died. It also considered the Council had explained its thinking to Miss B when it had considered taking care proceedings.
  3. In commenting on Miss B’s housing the response said “It is not the responsibility of [Social Worker X] to deal with your on-going housing problems, including damp, mold, & cats’ urine smell in your home. It is your responsibility to contact the Housing Department to come and resolve any housing problem you may have”. However, the Council agreed it would find another social worker to work with D. The response said that if Miss B was dissatisfied with its reply she could ask the Council to put the complaint through the next stage of the Children’s Services complaint procedure. It said she should do this within a month.
  4. I have seen no record that Miss B contacted the Council in response to its reply. However, in October 2018 she contacted this office and we referred her back to the Council to consider undertaking further investigation. In December 2018 Miss B sent the Council an email explaining why she remained unhappy with its service. Miss B said she considered the Council had treated her and D in a “disgusting way” after F died. She did not consider the Council had justified safeguarding concerns then and wanted an apology for the threat D may have been taken into care. She criticised the conduct of Social Worker X and his communications with her.
  5. In response the Council offered an apology for any distress Miss B considered its actions had caused to D. It said that a complaint investigation would not result in sanctions against Social Worker X such as preventing him working with children. It said it would not change records but put her views on its file. Miss B thanked the Council for its response but said she still wanted her complaint “fully investigated”. The Council sent a final response saying it did not consider a complaint investigation could achieve the outcomes Miss B wanted from her complaint.

My findings

Complaint about Social Worker X being unprofessional

  1. I find there is simply not enough detail in the social work notes to come to a view on most of the allegations Miss B has made about the social worker. I was not present at meetings the social worker had with Miss B. So, it is simply not possible to come to a view on how the social worker may have presented or if he might have spoken inappropriately to Miss B or D.
  2. In addition, the social work notes of visits do not generally record what time the social worker arranged them for, when they arrived or how long they lasted. I considered the notes sufficiently detailed to show the visits were not cursory. For example, the social worker recorded observations about the house or D’s activity. But at the same time there was sometimes little detail in there to reflect what work the social worker undertook with D or their discussions with Miss B. They compare poorly with the notes kept by Officer Y and Social Worker Z, both of whom recorded their conversations with Miss B in greater detail. However, this is not grounds for me to say that all Miss B’s complaints about Social Worker X’s dealings with her can be upheld.
  3. However, I consider some of Miss B’s concerns founded. Around April 2017 I noted references in social work notes to Social Worker X calling Miss B back after an unspecified delay and emails from professionals working with D requesting call-backs a week after first contacting him. I also noted Social Worker X was away from his desk in September 2017 for some time and think it credible he did not return calls made by Miss B then. The Council also acknowledges it cancelled a meeting in October 2017 at short notice. I find overall therefore grounds to consider Miss B did not always receive a satisfactory level of customer service. This justifies a finding of fault.
  4. I also consider there is fault in the scarcity of records at certain points. While I do not expect social workers to keep exhaustive notes of all their conversations with clients, there should be clear records to indicate when they provide key paperwork around child protection matters. For example, copies of assessments, minutes and so on. Also, when discussing matters such as potential legal proceedings. I find that many of the records made during the time Social Worker X worked on the case were deficient on such matters. So, this too was fault.
  5. I also note the Council was wrong to suggest that its social worker had not tried to contact Miss B on the day F passed away. The notes of the social worker record they telephoned Miss B on that day although not how many times they called. I considered this could appear insensitive to Miss B, although I could not say it was inappropriate given the Council still had interest in D’s welfare.
  6. The injustice caused to Miss B by the faults recorded at paragraphs 49 and 50 is that of distress. Both resulting from the poor service and from the limitations this imposes on any effective investigation into some the specific allegations Miss B makes.

Complaint the Council considered legal proceedings to take D into care.

  1. I find the Council’s records painted a mixed picture of Miss B’s engagement with services after February 2017. They noted Miss B engaged positively with services to support her during pregnancy. She also clearly enjoyed a good relationship with Officer Y and engaged with work around domestic violence. Her relations with Social Worker X appear more strained at times. But his reports to child protection conferences still presented a balanced picture, reflecting Miss B’s engagement.
  2. Yet it was also clear that Social Worker X always had concerns that Miss B might reconcile with Mr E. As it was Miss B’s relations with Mr E that led to D being on a child protection plan this was an understandable concern. Miss B should also note other professionals working with her and D, shared those concerns. D would not have been on a child protection plan otherwise.
  3. Those professionals also shared Social Worker X’s concerns when they learnt of Miss B’s contacts with Mr E during August 2017. Those contacts concerned relations between them and were not just around contact between Mr E and D, which is something I consider below. This further coincided with a time when there were strains in Miss B’s contacts with her family.
  4. Miss B should not be surprised therefore those concerns led the Council to consider potential care proceedings. I could not say this was unreasonable in October 2017.
  5. I am also satisfied the Council had continuing reasonable concerns in January 2018. Miss B had reconciled with her family. But she maintained contact with Mr E and then breached the safeguarding agreement without telling the Council.
  6. I do of course note that in between these two dates there was the tragic and unforeseen event of F’s death. I considered that despite its concerns, the Council potentially reverted too quickly to considering care proceedings. Although I must also note this was a conclusion it seems to have reached itself, after intervention from its Independent Reviewing Officer. So, while I accept distress was caused to Miss B by the Council’s actions in January 2018, I am not going to find it at fault for contemplating if it should consider care proceedings. It was also appropriate for the Council to tell Miss B that it was contemplating such proceedings, despite the distress caused. As the Council should always aim to carry out child protection work in an open and transparent way as possible in the circumstances of the case.
  7. But I do find grounds to consider the Council at fault in two other regards, both of which relate to its contemplation of care proceedings. First, I note the absence of any clear contemporaneous advice or action by the Council in respect of what Miss B should do about contact between Mr E and D from April 2017 onward. The notes reflect Miss B’s confusion, but not the Council doing anything to address this. What Miss B needed was clear advice setting out the legal position on parental rights and responsibilities and if the Council supported Mr E having contact with D and if so, in what circumstances. Yet I find no evidence the Council provided that, despite this being an obvious source of confusion to Miss B which it recorded more than once. The Chair of the review child protection conference also picked up on this, noting in November 2017 the Council adopted a confusing position. Even after that I found further confusion in January 2018. Social Worker X’s email quoted in paragraph 37 is vague and unclear in its message.
  8. Second, I find a lack of clear explanation given to Miss B about what the Council’s concerns were with regard to the condition of her property in January 2018 and how it expected any concerns to be addressed. The Council’s notes in December 2017 suggested urgent action needed in this area. But not by whom or what.
  9. I cannot say that that if the Council had communicated better in both these areas it would not have gone down the route of considering care proceedings. As I have explained above, those decisions took account of Miss B’s actions. But her actions may have been different in turn had the Council communicated far better on these two key issues.
  10. I find this fault adds to the injustice I described in paragraph 52.

Complaint the Council did not do enough to support Miss B with unsuitable housing.

  1. I find the evidence supports two conclusions about Miss B’s housing. First, that it suffered damp conditions. There was disrepair which potentially the Council’s housing service needed to address.
  2. Second, that it was also cluttered and smelly at times. Some of the smells may have come from the damp. But some also from general standards of cleanliness. I note here the frequent references to Miss B keeping multiple cats and smells associated with that.
  3. Multiple statements appear in the records supporting both these findings. I note however they are not always consistent. While at times Council officers had concerns for how Miss B kept the property on other times they praised it for being tidy.
  4. I found the Council’s position on supporting Miss B with her housing conditions hard to follow. This was especially after F died. Because I did not consider the police report told the Council anything inconsistent with what both Social Worker X and Officer Y had observed at different times. As I noted above the Council seemed to resolve to take urgent action. But did not make clear what that action would be or if it was for it to take or Miss B.
  5. Before that, clearly the Council had agreed to support Miss B with re-housing. I cannot see this amounted to more that Social Worker X providing her with a letter of support. However, I accept social workers will have limited influence over decisions taken by the Council housing service over re-housing. I do not find therefore the Council children’ services at fault for not doing more. And I found no evidence to support the view the Council lost papers Miss B gave to her social worker in support of her needing to move. If she did give Social Worker X papers they did not record this and the matter cannot be investigated further in these circumstances.
  6. It is also clear the Council offered some support to Miss B to help with any structural or disrepair issues. Officer Y’s involvement was key here. I saw evidence in the Council notes that she provided considerable support for Miss B in dealing with housing services. Including getting that service to respond to urgent repair matters unconnected to damp. Unfortunately, it is not clear to me the Council received clear advice in return about whether that service had concerns there was a structural problem giving rise to the damp conditions Miss B reported.
  7. On balance therefore I considered there was not enough evidence to find fault in the support given to Miss B around her housing conditions. Although there was the poor communication about this issue after December 2017 which I addressed above. If the Council wanted Miss B to keep D away from her home because of reasons connected with its condition and not for any other reason, it should have made this clear. It should also have made clear what needed to happen to resolve those concerns.
  8. I also thought the Council’s reply to Miss B’s complaint about this issue insensitive and confusing. It implied all the problems with Miss B’s flat stemmed from her own management of her property. This was not the case as its own records showed evidence of disrepair. In also saying all the responsibility for ensuring repairs depended on Miss B’s actions it also overlooked the role of its own officers in supporting Miss B with housing.
  9. These poor communications add further to Miss B’s injustice I identified above.

Complaint about support after February 2018

  1. I understand how distressing Miss B found the Council’s decision to withdraw her family support worker, Officer Y. Miss B had clearly developed a trusted relationship with Officer Y, which she did not enjoy with Social Worker X. I understand the change reflected the Council’s wish to re-set the support given overall to Miss B. I do not criticise that, given Miss B’s own dissatisfaction with the help then being given by the Council.
  2. But I find the letter Miss B received in answer to her complaint in February 2018 did not adequately prepare her for this change or explain the Council’s reasons for it. This was a further area where the Council could have communicated better.
  3. However, I do not uphold this part of the complaint. Because I do not find grounds to consider the Council at fault for any other aspects of the support it provided Miss B after February 2018. I note the specialist support service if offered Miss B did not become involved in her case. But I am satisfied this was in response to Miss B’s own statements that she felt overwhelmed with the work she undertook with the support of others. As the suggestion of the specialist service coincided with when she received grief counselling and was regularly attending support for victims of domestic violence. Miss B did not consider she could effectively work with that service also at that time within the time she had available and given the emotional burden of that work. I find the Council sympathetic to those understandable concerns and it acted on them appropriately. I do not find this means it was also at fault for suggesting she access that service initially.

The Council’s complaint handling

  1. I noted above some flaws in the response given by the Council to Miss B in reply to her complaint in February 2018. I ask the Council to note my concerns.
  2. I also consider the Council should have ensured in October 2018 that it arranged for an investigation of Miss B’s complaint in line with the statutory complaint procedure explained in paragraphs 15 to 18. I can understand the reply given to the Council about Miss B’s desired outcomes to an investigation. But there were other potential outcomes it could explore if her complaints were upheld. It was also clear what Miss B wanted was an independent investigation. There was enough in what she told the Council to justify that, a finding reinforced by our investigation. It was fault for the Council not to forward the complaint to Stage 2 of the statutory procedure therefore.
  3. This investigation remedies much of any injustice caused as a result. Because Miss B has now received an independent and impartial investigation into her complaint. But she will still have experienced some distress in the Council not arranging its own independent investigation.

Agreed action

  1. The Council has accepted the findings of this investigation. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss B it has agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will:
      1. write to Miss B with an apology accepting the findings of this investigation.
      2. pay Miss B £500 in recognition of her distress.
      3. agree to append a summary note of our final decision to D’s social care records with a link for any officers who may work with the family in the future to where they can access the full decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For reasons set out above I propose to uphold this complaint, finding fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss B. The Council has agreed action that I find will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can now complete this investigation satisfied with its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings