Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s children’s services department’s handling of allegations made against her by relatives. Mrs B says the Council’s mishandling of the matter caused her a lot of distress and affected her health. We find there was some fault by the Council and this caused Mrs B an injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B to put right this injustice. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains about the Council’s children’s services department’s handling of allegations made against her by relatives. Mrs B says the Council:
• did not tell her about the allegations;
• wrongly mentioned the allegations in Council documents and reports and said the allegations were believed, even though the Council had not investigated them;
• delayed making modifications to the case records to reflect her comments on the allegations and did not provide copies of the modifications until it responded to her stage 2 complaint;
• has still not investigated the allegations even though she made repeated requests for an investigation and the Council said in its stage 2 response to her complaint that it would investigate the allegations; and,
• delayed responding to her complaint, and the stage 2 response was inaccurate, biased towards the Council and did not consider information she provided.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s handling of the allegations has caused her a lot of distress and has affected her health.
3. Mrs B would like the Council to investigate the allegations and tell her the outcome. Mrs B would also like the Council to pay her a suitable amount of compensation to reflect the distress she suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered Mrs B’s complaint and have discussed the complaint with her. I have made enquiries to the Council and have considered the information provided by the Council in response. I have also shared a draft version of this statement with Mrs B and the Council, and have considered the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. In early 2017 Mrs B was providing support to her sister who was having some difficulties with her daughter’s behaviour. Mrs B’s sister had asked the Council’s children’s services department for help. The Council had some concerns for Mrs B’s sister’s children’s welfare during this period.
11. On 14 June a social worker visited Mrs B’s sister’s home. The social worker says Mrs B’s niece made allegations against Mrs B including that Mrs B had verbally abused her. The social worker says on 16 June Mrs B’s nephew said he witnessed Mrs B slap her son in the face.
12. The Council arranged an initial child protection conference on 17 July. Mrs B attended the conference to support her sister. The social worker provided a report for the conference which included the allegations made against Mrs B by her niece and nephew. This was when Mrs B first became aware of the allegations. The social worker also commented in the report that Mrs B did not present as supportive to the girls and one of the girls had shared very concerning information about her (and another person’s) interaction with her. The social worker said for this reason it would not be helpful to include Mrs B in any children’s services planning for the girls.
13. The Council arranged a core group meeting on 11 August. Mrs B attended the meeting. At the meeting the allegation made by Mrs B’s nephew was discussed.
14. A child protection review conference was held on 9 October. The Chair of the conference asked the social worker to further investigate the issues raised by Mrs B’s niece.
15. Mrs B strongly denied the allegations made against her and asked the social worker to investigate them. The social worker decided a family group conference was the best way to investigate the allegations.
16. A family group conference review was arranged for October 2017 but the planned conference did not take place. The Council says this was because the family did not engage in the process.
17. On 16 October Mrs B’s daughter sent an email to the social worker asking the social worker to not include Mrs B’s name in future documents.
18. The social worker responded on 7 November. The social worker again said the Council wanted to investigate the allegations by a family group conference. The social worker said Mrs B would not be mentioned in future reports unless the social worker needed to provide information about Mrs B’s sister’s support network.
19. On 30 November the Council sent a letter to Mrs B’s sister about concerns for her daughter’s welfare. The Council said the concerns now met the threshold for Public Law Outline (PLO) proceedings. The letter included one of the allegations made against Mrs B - that Mrs B verbally abused her niece.
20. In early December Mrs B put in a complaint to the Council. Mrs B later contacted her MP because the Council had not responded to her complaint.
21. The Council sent its stage 1 response to the complaint on 23 March 2018. The Council accepted some learning points but said the social worker was just recording the comments made by Mrs B’s niece and other family members. The Council said the social worker had added a further case note updating the situation which noted Mrs B’s concerns.
22. Mrs B was not satisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint, so put in a further complaint on 8 April.
23. The Council arranged a mediation meeting with Mrs B on 18 May. Mrs B was not satisfied with the meeting so put in a further complaint on 21 May.
24. The Council did a learning review on 12 July.
25. The Council responded to Mrs B’s stage 2 complaint on 14 September. An independent officer investigated the complaint. The independent officer made several recommendations including that the allegations made against Mrs B were investigated and Mrs B should be informed of the outcome by 5 October. The Council offered Mrs B £100 for its delay responding to her complaint. Mrs B refused this offer.
26. Mrs B then complained to us.
27. On 31 October the Head of Service wrote to Mrs B with a case note that the Council had added to Mrs B’s niece’s file. The Head of service said the recording of the incidents was never designed to create the impression they were factually correct. Mrs B responded on 12 November. Mrs B said the case note only dealt with two of the five allegations made against her. The head of service told Mrs B on 16 November that the Council would not investigate the allegations.
28. On 3 December the Council wrote to Mrs B. The Council said an addendum note had been added to the file covering all five allegations. The Council again said it would not be appropriate to investigate the allegations.
29. Mrs B says the Council’s handling of the allegations has caused her a lot of distress and has affected her health.
30. The Council’s response to my enquiries included the following comments:
• The behaviour reported by Mrs B’s niece did not constitute significant harm and would not meet the threshold for a strategy discussion and therefore a section 47 enquiry would not have taken place. In addition, Mrs B was not in a care giving role with her niece.
• The concerns were best managed in a therapeutic context and this is why the Council suggested a family group conference.
• Formally interviewing her niece for statements on allegations made over a year before in the context of complex family dynamics would not have been in the child’s best interests.

Analysis

31. I will now address each of Mrs B’s complaints.

The Council did not tell Mrs B about the allegations

32. The Council says Mrs B would have been aware of the allegations when they were made because she was in contact with her sister. But, in any case, Mrs B found out about the allegations at the child protection conference – around one month after the allegations were made. It is not clear if the Council would have told Mrs B about the allegations if she had not attended the conference. But, because Mrs B attended the conference and found out about the allegations relatively soon after they were made, I do not consider the Council was at fault.

The Council wrongly mentioned the allegations in Council documents and reports and said the allegations were believed, even though the Council had not investigated them

33. There are two documents that specifically refer to the allegations which are the focus of Mrs B’s complaint.
34. The first document is the social worker’s report for the child protection conference. In this report the social worker states the allegations made against Mrs B. I do not consider the social worker was at fault for providing their account of what Mrs B’s niece and nephew said. The social worker did not explicitly say whether they believed each of the allegations made against Mrs B.
35. But, the social worker made comments about Mrs B’s relationship with her nieces and said Mrs B should not be included in any children’s services planning for the girls. The Council says this was because Mrs B had asked not to be included. But, the social worker appeared to accept that Mrs B had a ‘very concerning’ interaction with one of her nieces.
36. So, I can understand how Mrs B was given the impression the officer believed the allegations made against her. In its response to the complaint the Council has said the social worker was just recording the comments made by Mrs B’s niece and other family members. But, my view is the social worker’s comments went further than just recording these comments. Also, it does not appear the social worker discussed these allegations with Mrs B before making these comments. My view is this is evidence of fault.
37. I also consider Mrs B suffered a significant injustice because of the Council’s fault. The report gave the impression the Council accepted the allegations made against Mrs B. This caused Mrs B avoidable distress.
38. The Council has now added a note to the case record to make it clear that Mrs B denies the allegations. The note also makes it clear that the Council has not formed a view on whether the allegations are true. I consider this was a suitable action by the Council and partly puts right the injustice Mrs B suffered.
39. But, I also consider the Council should take further action to recognise the distress Mrs B suffered. So, in the ‘Agreed action’ section of this statement I have asked the Council to make a payment to Mrs B to put right this injustice.
40. The second document which referred to one of the allegations made against Mrs B was a letter the Council sent to Mrs B’s sister on 30 November 2017 about PLO proceedings.
41. The Council sent this letter after the social worker had said Mrs B would not be mentioned in future reports unless the social worker needed to provide information about Mrs B’s sister’s support network.
42. In response to Mrs B’s complaint the Council said when the social worker prepared the PLO letter it automatically ‘pulled through’ the chronology from the case file. The Council added that the social worker decided the allegations were a significant event in Mrs B’s niece’s life, so made sure they were included in the chronology.
43. I can understand why Mrs B felt aggrieved that the Council mentioned one of the allegations made against her in the PLO letter. This is because the social worker said she would not mention Mrs B (apart from with reference to her sister’s support network) in further documents. I have placed some weight on the Council’s explanation for including this information. But, it would have been helpful if the social worker had contacted Mrs B to tell her the allegation would be included.
44. However, unlike the report for the child protection conference, the PLO letter just stated the allegation made against Mrs B. It did not include any further comments which could give the impression the allegation was accepted by the Council. So, even if the Council was at fault for including the allegation, I do not consider Mrs B suffered a significant injustice as a result.

The Council delayed making modifications to the case records to reflect Mrs B’s comments on the allegations and did not provide copies of the modifications until it responded to her stage 2 complaint

45. Mrs B’s request for the social worker to amend the case record was made as part of her complaint to the Council. The Council’s response to Mrs B’s stage 1 complaint said the social worker had added a further case note updating the situation which noted Mrs B’s concerns. It is not clear when the social worker added this case note. But, the Council agreed to share the case note when it responded to Mrs B’s stage 2 complaint. This also resulted in the Council writing further versions of the case note in late 2018 in response to Mrs B’s comments.
46. My view is the delay by the Council adding a case note to the record and sharing this with Mrs B was largely the result of the Council’s delay responding to her complaint. If the Council had responded promptly to Mrs B’s complaint at both stage 1 and 2, this issue would have been resolved much earlier. I will address the Council’s delay responding to Mrs B’s complaint below.
47. Mrs B says the Council did not send her the final case note which addressed all five allegations. Mrs B has now been provided with this case note as a result of my investigation.

The Council has still not investigated the allegations even though Mrs B made repeated requests for an investigation and the Council said in its stage 2 response to her complaint that it would investigate the allegations

48. I can understand why Mrs B wanted the Council to investigate the allegations to in effect ‘clear her name’. Also, this was recommended by both the Chair of the child protection conference and the independent officer who investigated Mrs B’s stage 2 complaint. Mrs B also says she provided the Council with enough information to help it form a view on each of the allegations.
49. But, the Council has explained its view that the allegations were best considered as part of a family group conference. Also, more recently the Council has explained that it would not be in the child’s interests to interview her now about allegations made over a year ago. These were decisions for the Council to make and I cannot say the Council was wrong to take this approach, particularly because the Council has amended the case record to make it clear that it has not formed a view on the allegations.
50. Mrs B says the Council did not tell her the allegations would be investigated at a family group conference. Mrs B also says the allegations were not included in the agenda for the family group conference. But, I note Mrs B and other family members decided not to take part in the family group conference. Also, although the allegations are not specifically mentioned in the agenda, the agenda does mention Mrs B and her relationship with her nieces. So, it is possible the allegations would have been discussed if the family group conference went ahead.

The Council delayed responding to her complaint and the stage 2 response was inaccurate, biased towards the Council and did not consider information she provided

51. The Council has accepted it delayed responding to both Mrs B’s stage 1 and 2 complaints. The delay was significant. This caused Mrs B some distress. Also, as discussed already, it meant it took longer than needed for the Council to add a note to the case record and share this with Mrs B. The Council’s delay also prolonged Mrs B’s distress about the allegations made against her and whether they would be investigated by the Council. The Council has already offered Mrs B £100 to put right the injustice she suffered. I have asked the Council to make a higher payment to Mrs B.
52. Mrs B has made several complaints about the independent officer’s investigation of her stage 2 complaint. The Council was not required to appoint an independent officer to undertake the stage 2 investigation. All the information indicates the independent officer thoroughly investigated Mrs B’s complaint. The independent officer discussed the complaint with Mrs B, met relevant officers and interviewed the Chair of the child protection conference. The stage 2 report is detailed. Mrs B disagrees with many of the officer’s findings. But, the information does not suggest the officer was at fault for the way the investigation was handled. In any case, Mrs B has been able to complain to us and we have investigated her complaint independently.

Agreed action

53. To put right the injustice suffered by Mrs B as a result of the fault I have identified, I recommend that within two months of my final decision, the Council:
• Pays Mrs B £300 for the distress she suffered because of the Council’s handling of the allegations made against her; and,
• Pays Mrs B £200 for the distress she suffered because of the Council’s delay responding to her complaint.
54. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

55. There was some fault by the Council and Mrs B suffered an injustice as a result. The Council has agreed to take action to put right this injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman