Hertfordshire County Council (19 000 434)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 14 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr C reported what he, and a social worker from a different area, identified as emotional abuse on his children by their mother. He says he was told the Council would contact him in order to get more information after he reported this but it did not, which caused him distress. The Council was at fault for failing to follow statutory guidance by not telling him what action it would take and by not signposting him to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complained the Council failed to consider a safeguarding allegation that he made in relation to the way his ex-partner treated his children. It then failed to consider the complaint he made about its actions through the statutory complaints process or through its own corporate complaints procedure.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated the part of Mr C’s complaint about the way the Council handled a safeguarding allegation but not the part of his complaint about investigating at Stage Two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. I explain why I have not done so at the end of this statement.

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. 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.
  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

  1. I spoke to Mr C on the telephone and considered the information provided by him with his complaint. I also made enquiries of the Council and analysed its response. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and took into account comments made before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Mr C complained to the Council as he felt it did not properly detail or investigate a safeguarding allegation he made about the care of his children by their mother.
  2. Mr C told me the children’s mother had dressed them in party dresses on a day that contact wasn’t due. She then filmed how unhappy they were that Mr C wasn’t picking them up and sent the video to Mr C and his sister.
  3. According to the Council’s records, Mr C made an allegation about their mother cutting off the children’s video contact with him if she saw his parents in the room.
  4. Mr C says a social worker, in a different council’s area, referred to this as ‘emotional abuse’. He says this social worker advised him to contact the Council. I checked with the Council but there was no referral received from the social worker herself. I would expect professionals to make referrals if they had significant concerns about children.
  5. When Mr C reported this to the Council he says he was told the call handler only needed a brief outline. He says the call handler explained that a qualified social worker would call him back in the next working day to discuss the allegation in more depth, gather further information and decide whether any further action was required.
  6. Mr C did not receive a response. He complained online to the Council. The Council’s reply said it did not share his view that the mother's behaviour constituted emotional abuse. Mr C says the Council made this decision based on the second-hand information recorded by the call taker (who was not a qualified social worker) so it did not have the full information regarding his concerns. The Council also told him it did not call him back as it did not have his telephone number on file although Mr C says it had contacted him previously.
  7. Mr C wanted the Council to investigate his complaint at Stage Two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. He said the Council told him professional judgement could not be reviewed through the complaints process. Further to that, the Council said his concerns would not be recorded as ‘a complaint’, which is why he would not have a right to continue to Stage Two.

What should have happened

  1. When the Council receives an allegation of abuse, under the requirements of the relevant statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (2018) it has one working day to decide what action to take.
  2. The Council told me all allegations made over the telephone go from trained call handlers to a qualified social worker. The social worker makes the decision as to what action the Council will take. There is no evidence of fault in it doing this.
  3. ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ is clear the Council should have told Mr C – also within one working day - what action it was going to take (or not going to take). This means someone from the Council should have called Mr C back as the referrer. The Council’s failure to do this is fault. At that point, Mr C would also have had the opportunity to detail any other concerns.
  4. The Council says Mr C’s allegation, in the professional opinion of the social worker who considered it, did not reach the threshold for further action. This is a professional judgement and I have no evidence it was made with fault. Even if a behaviour might be termed ‘abusive’, it does not follow that this would automatically reach the threshold of being so significant that further action was necessary.
  5. Although the Council told Mr C it did not have his telephone number on file; it has acknowledged to me that it did.
  6. The Council said to Mr C that matters were going through the family court at the time and this was something for the court to consider. Although the court was considering contact, not safeguarding, the issues Mr C detailed to me, and the Council, were connected with contact. It is not fault the Council felt the court would be able to look at the issues raised once the Council determined the matter had not met the threshold for safeguarding action. In turn, the court would have the power to order the Council to become involved if it thought this was more a safeguarding, than contact, matter. The Council was incorrect to say that professional judgement could not be considered through the complaints procedure. Officer decisions can be the subject of complaint if there is evidence their decisions were made with fault. The Council could have chosen to use its corporate procedure to look at this. The Council did, however, have good reason to expect the court could consider the allegations.
  7. The Council should have signposted Mr C to us once it decided not to investigate his complaint.

Fault

  1. Mr C expected a social worker to return his call. ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ says he was right to have expected contact. This is fault.
  2. When responding to Mr C’s complaint, the Council told him that it did not have his telephone number on file so no one could speak to him. This was not the case as it later confirmed to me. This is fault.
  3. The Council should have made clear to Mr C why it felt the issue he raised related to ongoing court proceedings. Mr C was left confused given the court was discussing contact not safeguarding. This is fault by the Council. It is not reasonable to expect parents to link disclosures to contact issues without the Council making its reasoning clear. At the same time, Mr C could have told his legal representative about the allegation as they would also have been in a good position to decide whether it was appropriate to bring this up in court.
  4. The Council should have advised Mr C to contact us given its decision not to investigate his complaint. This is separate from its expectation the safeguarding matters were for the court.

Injustice

  1. I consider Mr C was caused some distress in waiting for the Council to get in touch with him after he had made the referral. He would have benefitted from an explanation as to why the Council felt the court was the right place to consider the matters he raised. Mr C also knew the Council had his telephone number on file even though it said to him that it did not. Mr C was caused distress when the Council said it would not investigate his complaint but did not signpost him to us.

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council will provide an apology to Mr C and make him a payment of £150 to reflect the distress the Council’s actions caused to him.
  2. Within three months of my decision the Council will inform me of the action it has taken to ensure:
      1. that it follows statutory requirements and guidance requiring it to get back to referrers on what action it will take on safeguarding matters within one working day; and,
      2. that it informs complainants of their right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if it decides that it cannot investigate their complaint and does not either offer the complainant an opportunity to take their complaint to a further stage, or refer the complainant to a right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have found evidence of fault leading to injustice for Mr C. The Council has agreed actions to remedy this.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated Mr C’s allegation that the Council should have addressed his complaint at Stage Two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because child protection matters, which is what Mr C was complaining about, do not come under the statutory complaints process.

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