Summary: Mr B says the Council refused to allow him contact with his grandchildren, failed to take action when one of its social workers assaulted him, banned him from Council buildings and discriminated against him by placing restrictions on his contact with Council officers. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B’s contact with his grandchildren, the complaint about the social worker or his attendance at Council buildings. The Council’s communications with Mr B about restrictions placed on him was confused and its policy is not clear but there is no evidence of discrimination. An apology, a revised letter to Mr B about the restrictions placed on him and a review of the Council’s policy is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• unfairly took his grandchildren into care;
• carried out an inaccurate viability assessment of him as a potential carer;
• included personal information in the viability assessment and shared that with third parties;
• unreasonably refused to allow him contact with his grandchildren;
• unreasonably banned him from all Council buildings;
• failed to take action when a Council social worker assaulted him at court; and
• discriminated against him by placing special restrictions on his contact with Council officers.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the issues outlined in bullet points 4-7 of paragraph 1. I set out at the end of this statement my reasons for not investigating the other three issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Mr B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. On 29 October 2018 the Council applied for interim care orders for Mr B’s grandchildren. Mr B attended court with his daughter and says a social worker deliberately hit him with her bag at court. Mr B made a complaint about that. Officers were to meet with Mr B to discuss his concerns on 1 November. However, the meeting did not take place as Mr B was recording the meeting and officers did not agree to be recorded. The Council shared details of the complaint with the police and provided Mr B with contact details to report the alleged assault.
9. On 2 November Mr B complained a Council officer had told his daughter he was not allowed to attend her contact with her children. Mr B also complained about officers not allowing him into the building which meant he had to remain in his car. Mr B said he had been falsely imprisoned in the car and alleged cruelty by the officer.
10. On 5 November the Council told Mr B it could progress his contact with his grandchildren once he completed a risk assessment. The Council told Mr B it would not tolerate derogatory comments about officers.
11. Mr B emailed the Council on 9 November asking to be present at his daughter’s request at any social services meetings. The Council considers that email contains inappropriate comments.
12. The Council wrote to Mr B on 16 November to tell him the social worker denied assaulting him and that any contact with her bag was unintentional.
13. On 21 November Mr B asked for the complaint about the alleged assault to go to stage two. The Council considers Mr B included inappropriate comments in his email.
14. On 22 November the Council wrote to Mr B and reminded him it would not tolerate abusive or threatening language or behaviour or derogatory comments towards officers. The Council asked Mr B to stop those behaviours.
15. On 17 December, when communicating with the Council about a council tax problem, Mr B said he could not resolve the issue as the Council had banned him from all Council buildings. The Council told Mr B he could attend any Council building.
16. The Council responded to the stage two complaint on 19 December. The Council upheld the findings at stage one. The Council said its officer could have reminded Mr B of his right to report the matter to the police relating to false imprisonment in his car. The Council said it would also have been good practice for the officer dealing with his complaint to speak to him directly during the review.
17. On 20 December Mr B complained about the Council banning him from entering any Council building and said this was disability discrimination. On 21 December the Council told Mr B he was not banned from entering Council buildings. The Council told him he could not attend any children’s social care meetings until he had completed a risk assessment. In response Mr B accused the Council of lying. The Council considers that email contains inappropriate content.
18. Mr B emailed the Council again on 11 January 2019. The Council considers the email contains inappropriate comments.
19. On 8 March the Council warned Mr B it would not tolerate derogatory comments towards officers. Mr B responded later that day with an email the Council considers contains abusive and inappropriate comments.
20. On 15 March the Council sent Mr B a warning letter to advise his comments were not acceptable. The Council said it was restricting his contact with officers and all correspondence should be sent via the customer liaison team. The Council did not say how long the restriction would last for. However, in correspondence with the Ombudsman the Council says it will review Mr B’s communications within 12 months.

Analysis

21. Mr B says the Council is unreasonably refusing to allow him contact with his grandchildren. I have carefully considered the documentary evidence. The Council’s policy says it must complete a written risk assessment before any supervised contact takes place. In this case I am satisfied the Council has not completed a risk assessment for Mr B. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council cannot complete the risk assessment until Mr B agrees to meet without recording the meeting. As both of those requirements are in accordance with the Council’s procedures I cannot criticise the Council for not allowing contact to take place until a risk assessment is completed.
22. Mr B says the Council has unreasonably banned him from all Council buildings which means he cannot attend child protection meetings for his grandchildren. I have found no evidence to suggest the Council said Mr B cannot enter any Council building. Instead, the documentary evidence shows the Council has written to Mr B often to tell him he is not banned from Council buildings. I am satisfied the restrictions instead concern him attending any meetings with children’s social care in Council premises. That again concerns the need to complete a risk assessment and for Mr B to agree not to record meetings. As I have explained, I cannot criticise that decision. As there is no evidence to support Mr B’s allegation the Council has banned him from all Council buildings I have no grounds to criticise it.
23. Mr B says the Council failed to take action when one of its social workers assaulted him at court. Mr B says when attending court the social worker deliberately hit him with her laptop bag. I am satisfied the Council properly investigated that point by interviewing the social worker concerned. The social worker denied the allegation and said any contact made with Mr B was accidental. While I understand Mr B takes a different view, I am satisfied it is a case here of one person’s word against another’s. As the Ombudsman cannot take evidence on oath I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whose version of events is correct. I am, however, satisfied the Council provided Mr B with contact details for the police should he want to pursue an allegation of assault. As assault is a criminal matter I consider that an appropriate response by the Council.
24. Mr B says the Council discriminated against him by placing restrictions on his contact with Council officers. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council placed the restrictions on Mr B’s contact after numerous email communications from Mr B which the Council considered contained inappropriate content. I am satisfied before placing those restrictions on Mr B the Council wrote to him on several occasions to ask him to stop communicating in that way. I am therefore satisfied there is no evidence of discrimination in how the Council dealt with Mr B.
25. However, I am concerned about the way in which the Council imposed restrictions and its communications with Mr B about those restrictions. The Council has provided a copy of its policy statement on customer behaviour and conduct. That suggests the Council has placed restrictions on Mr B under that policy, rather than under its unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complaints procedure. However, the letter to Mr B imposing the restrictions refers to unreasonable/persistent complaints behaviour which would suggest it is the Council’s unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complaints procedure which is being applied.
26. The Council has not provided a copy of that procedure and its website says it has adopted the Ombudsman’s guidance on unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complaints. The link on the Council’s website does not provide the guidance on which it is relying. However, the Ombudsman’s guidance on dealing with unreasonably persistent complainants makes clear when imposing restricted access we would expect the Council to write to the complainant to explain why the decision has been taken, what that means for the person’s contacts with the Council, how long any limits will last and what the complainant can do to have the decision reviewed.
27. In this case the Council’s letter imposing restrictions did not explain how long the restrictions would last, although the Council has since said it will review the restrictions within 12 months. The Council’s letter also did not provide Mr B with details on how to seek a review of the decision. Failing to have a clear procedure and to have explained that properly to Mr B is fault. To be clear though, I do not criticise the Council for imposing restrictions on Mr B’s contact with its officers. That is a decision the Council was entitled to reach after considering the nature of some of Mr B’s contacts. However, I would have expected the Council to have been clear about how long the restrictions would last and what Mr B could do to have the restrictions reviewed. Failure to do that is fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• write to Mr B to confirm the status of the restrictions on his contact with Council officers, how long that restriction will last and whether he can seek a review of that decision;
• apologise to Mr B for not explaining that properly in its letter of 15 March 2019; and
• review its policies on dealing with unreasonably persistent complainants to ensure it covers the length of any restriction, the need to tell the complainant about the length of the restriction and how he or she can seek a review of the restrictions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. I have not investigated Mr B’s concerns about his grandchildren being taken into care or concerns about the Council’s assessment of his suitability as a carer for his grandchildren. That is because those matters relate to court proceedings. They therefore fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
31. I have not investigated Mr B’s concern about the Council sharing his personal information with third parties. That is because it is the Information Commissioner, rather than the Ombudsman, that deals with complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman