Summary: Mr X complains that on two occasions the Council wrongly applied a red flag against his name on their care record system, indicating he posed a risk to children. He says this has caused him distress, affected his family life and he has lost trust in the Council’s ability to maintain accurate records. The Council has accepted fault but the remedy it offered Mr X is insufficient for the injustice caused. Due to the repeated nature of the mistake and distress caused, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £300. Mr X also complains the Council are still saying he presents a risk to children, but there is no evidence of this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that on two occasions the Council wrongly applied a red flag against his name on their care record system, indicating he poses a safeguarding risk to children. He says this has caused him distress, affected his family life and he has lost trust in the Council’s ability to maintain accurate records. He says the Council are still treating him as a risk. He is dissatisfied with the remedy the Council offered through its complaints process. It has apologised, assured him there is currently no Red Flag and offered him £150 compensation. Mr X does not feel this is sufficient for the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone. I considered the documents he provided.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. Councils have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. Sheffield Council has child protection and safeguarding procedures in place which set out how it will achieve this.
8. Part of these procedures relate to the sharing and recording of information about persons who present a risk to children. The procedure sets out when agencies should share information, who should share information and how this information should be stored.
9. The procedure sets out when information should be held by Children’s services and applied to a person’s file. Criteria include:
• Person’s convicted of certain criminal offences;
• Persons with a finding of fact against them from either “private or public law proceedings”;
• Persons where it is deemed either at a professionals’ meeting, strategy meeting or child protection conference that they present a risk to children.
10. The Council’s care record system has a feature to clearly identify where it holds information that a person presents a risk or potential risk to children. This is sometimes known as applying a “red flag” to a person’s record.
11. The Council acknowledges that information held on persons who present a risk to children is highly sensitive. The procedure says information held on members of the general public must be held lawfully and be subject to review.

What happened

12. In September 2018, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council had told him there was a red flag against his name on its care records, indicating he presented a risk to children. He said the Council had no evidence of this. He said this had happened before and on the previous occasion the Council told him it was a mistake, removed the red flag and apologised. He was upset that it had happened for a second time. He said he wanted financial compensation for the distress caused.
13. The Council responded to his complaint. It said it was aware that a red flag had previously been wrongly applied to his record, and that he had received an apology for this error. It said the Council officer that spoke to him had made a mistake and there was currently no red flag against his name. It apologised and said it had discussed it with the officer and in the team meeting to ensure the mistake did not happen again. It said it appreciated it had caused him distress but did not think financial compensation was appropriate.
14. Mr X was not happy with this response and escalated his complaint. He said the officer had also wrongly told those involved in the care of his friend’s child that he had a red flag against his name, when the Council had no evidence of this. He said as this had now happened twice, he did not accept that it was a mistake. He said he wanted financial compensation and reassurance the mistake would not happen again.
15. In October 2018, the Council met with Mr X to discuss his concerns.
16. In November 2018, a document from a meeting related to the care of his friend’s child recorded that Police Checks had been completed for Mr X and they did not raise any concerns.
17. In December 2018, the Council wrote to Mr X again. It acknowledged the same mistake happening twice could cause distress. It apologised again. It said it would take action to correct the mistake. It would tell the people it had misinformed that he did not have a red flag against his name and that the Council currently holds no evidence he poses a risk to children. It offered him £150 compensation for the mistakes and the distress caused.
18. Mr X remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint again. He said those present at a meeting related to his friend’s child had been incorrectly told he had a red flag. He said the Council was downplaying the mistake, and that he wanted more compensation.
19. The Council completed a final review. It said the Council currently held no information indicating he posed a risk to children. He was not red flagged on the care record system. It said it would record this clearly in relation to his friend’s child, so those involved would know there was not a red flag against his name. It said it considered the offer of £150 as proportionate to any distress he had suffered.
20. Mr X remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us. He said he did not feel the amount of compensation offered was sufficient to remedy the distress caused to him. He said the situation had negatively affected his own relationships and family life, and he had lost trust in the Council’s ability to keep accurate records. He said the Council was still acting as if he presented a risk to children, and he had been named in a child protection document relating to his friend’s child.
21. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said he was named in this document as he is significant in relation to the household. It said it would always complete checks on any adult spending significant time with a child who was subject to a child protection plan. It said this did not imply that Mr X was a risk to children. It also provided minutes of a meeting in June 2019 which showed it had again discussed that the Council currently had no concerns Mr X was a risk to his friend’s child or any other children.

Analysis

22. The Council has accepted it was at fault when it firstly incorrectly recorded a red flag against Mr X’s name, and secondly when it told him and others there was a red flag applied to his name, indicating he posed a risk to children. It has taken appropriate action to discuss the matter with its officers to ensure the mistake is not repeated. It has apologised to Mr X for its mistakes and offered him £150 compensation. Mr X does not feel this is enough to remedy the injustice caused.
23. Mr X says the mistakes have affected his relationships and family life. The Council told others he presented as a risk to children when this was not the case. He has also lost trust in the Council’s ability to keep accurate records. Our Guidance on Remedies says payments for distress are usually between £100-300. Overall, a payment of £300 is more appropriate to reflect the repeated nature of the mistake, the sharing of incorrect information and the wider impact on Mr X’s life.
24. Mr X says the Council are continuing to say he presents as a risk to children, but I have seen no evidence of this. The Council has a duty to safeguard children and protect them from significant harm. His friend’s child is on a child protection plan and the Council is not at fault in its decision to assess those it considers significant to the household who wish to have contact with the child. A decision to assess a person is not the same as saying it holds information the person presents a risk.

Agreed action

25. Within one month of my final decision the Council will pay Mr X £300 as a remedy for the distress caused, the loss of trust and the impact on his family life.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman