Summary: Mrs C says the Council was at fault for failures during an investigation into risk to her children which led the Council to overestimate that risk thereby causing her injustice. She says the Council relied on and refused to change false information. The Council was at fault for errors made during the investigation. It has agreed to apologise, pay her £250 and explain what further action it has taken or intends to take to remedy its fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mrs C, says the Council was at fault for errors in its handling of an investigation into risk to her children after a referral under s.47 of the Children Act 1989. She says the Council was at fault for:
1. A generally poor service
2. Delay in preparing reports and factual errors made in reports;
3. Making assumptions leading to confirmation bias;
4. Included unsubstantiated opinion rather than fact in the reports;
5. Failed to amend errors in later versions of reports or in subsequent reports;
6. Failed to conduct child protection conferences professionally;
7. Accused Mr and Mrs C of a failure to engage;
8. Failed to ensure that documents were attributed to named authors;
9. Sending the incorrect version of a report to the Emotional Health Academy;
10. Preparing inaccurate interview records;
11. Poor communication; and
12. Poor complaint handling.
2. Mrs C says she and her family have suffered injustice as a result of Council fault. Her daughter has suffered anxiety and the family as a whole has suffered stress.
3. Mrs C says the Council should take the following actions to remedy this injustice:
1. Carry out the recommendations of two stage two investigations which the Council has already agreed, but has failed, to do.
2. Amend the records to remove all errors and circulate to those that had the originals.
3. Hold an enquiry into how it came to commence the inquiry with the wrong facts.
4. Arrange for further interviews with her daughters with a different advocate.
5. Ensure that future reports are fact based. Ensure all opinions are attributed.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. Mrs C has also made a complaint to the RCPC chair’s professional body. I have decided not to investigate this part of the complaint. The Information commissioner has power to order the amendment of records. I have limited my remedy to asking the Council to comply with undertakings it has given.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
6. 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.
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 Xt 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I corresponded with Mrs C and read all the information she provided. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. I considered all the evidence provided and applied the relevant law and guidance.
9. I sent a draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and invited their comments. Having received comments from Mrs C, I amended the draft. I discussed the draft with the Council and made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Children Act 1989 – s.47 at risk children procedure

10. Where a local authority is informed or has reason to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or at significant risk of suffering significant harm whether through physical or emotional abuse, it should make such enquiries as it deems necessary to decide if safeguarding action is necessary. Council social workers should lead this process.

Working together to safeguard children

11. The Department for Education has issued Working Together to Safeguard Children, guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (‘the guidance’). This governs how councils carry out their s.47 duties.
12. It confirms that the welfare of children should be paramount that they should be looked after in their families, where possible.
13. At paragraph 23, it states ‘effective sharing of information between practitioners and local organisations and agencies is essential for early identification of need, assessment and service provision to keep children safe’.

Emotional abuse definition

14. Emotional abuse, also called psychological abuse, is defined by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as ‘any type of abuse that involves the continual emotional mistreatment of a child. It can be caused deliberately or negligently. Examples include:
• Humiliating or constantly criticising
• Threatening, shouting at a child or calling them names;
• Scapegoating, making them the butt of jokes;
• Exposing a child to upsetting events like domestic abuse or drug taking;

Early Help Assessment

15. The guidance says early help; providing support as soon as a problem emerges, is a more effective way to promote the welfare of children. Local authorities and other children’s organisations should work together to identify those who would benefit from early help.
16. One agency, usually the council, should take the lead in conducting an interagency assessment. It should be evidence-based, clear about action to be taken and what help the family requires to prevent needs escalating to a point where a statutory Children’s Act assessment is necessary.
17. A lead practitioner should conduct the assessment. They should provide help to the child and family, act as an advocate on their behalf and co-ordinate the delivery of support services.
18. To be effective, the process should take place with the agreement of the children and their parents or carers.

Single assessment for children at risk

19. Where a local authority receives a report that a child living in its area is at risk of harm, the authority must conduct a single assessment to assess the risk before deciding what, if any, steps to take to protect the child.
20. The council must investigate any risks the child faces. The investigating officer should speak to the child and family and all relevant professionals. Information should be shared if appropriate.

Child protection conferences

21. As part of the process, councils may conduct child protection conferences. At an initial conference, evidence of the risk to children can be gathered and shared. A plan may be agreed. Later, a review conference can be held to see what progress has been made and what further action, if any, is necessary.

The statutory complaints procedure for children’s complaints

22. The Children Act 1989 established the requirement for local authorities to have a formal representations/complaints procedure to deal primarily with complaints by and on behalf of children and young people.
23. This procedure is set out in the 2006 guidance Getting the Best from Complaints. The process has a three-stage structure. At stage one, a council responds to a complaint. If a complainant is not satisfied, they can ask for a stage two investigation. Stage two investigations are overseen by an independent person.
24. If complainants are still not satisfied, they can request a stage three review. This is conducted by a panel which takes evidence from witnesses.
25. Not all complaints about children’s services complaints must go through the statutory complaints procedure. Complaints brought by parents concerning their own rights rather than those of their children, can use the Council’s normal corporate complaints procedure.

Ombudsman’s policy on complaints after independent investigation

26. Where a council has completed a three-stage complaints procedure, the Ombudsman’s policy is not to reinvestigate the complaint but, rather, to consider whether that procedure was flawed.

What happened

Background

27. Mrs C lives in the Council’s area with Mr C and their two children, X and Y who are 16 and 13. Mr C has been known to drink heavily. In late 2015, Mr C accepted a caution for a drunken physical assault on Mrs C. The police placed a note on the file that, if there was further concern, children’s services should investigate.
28. In October 2017, Y’s school told the Council Y had said she was fearful of Mr C because of his drinking. The Council investigated. Mrs C says she accepts the Council had to investigate and agreed to cooperate on that basis.
29. A social worker was assigned to the case and began an assessment. She missed various appointments and was away for long periods. An independent advocate also met X and Y and took statements.
30. An initial child protection conference (ICPC) took place in early November 2017. The Council provided Mr and Mrs C with a copy of the single assessment report shortly beforehand. It should have done so earlier. Mrs C says she noticed inaccuracies. She says the social worker promised to give her a copy to allow her to highlight these but did not do so.
31. The report said the children were at risk of emotional abuse due to Mr C’s drinking. X received a copy of her statement from her advocate. Mrs C says X told the chair that much of the statement was inaccurate.
32. The chair met with X before the conference. She told Mr and Mrs C that X was too distressed to attend. Instead, she read X’s statement into the ICPC record. Mrs C says X was not distressed. She says the chair wanted to prevent X giving first-hand evidence. Y did not attend the conference. When Y saw the transcript, she too said her statement was inaccurate.
33. X and Y’s statements, as presented to the ICPC, said they were concerned about Mr C’s drinking. At the ICPC Mr C told X he accepted his drinking had an impact on X and Y which he had not understood. He said he would try to change.
34. The Council agreed to refer X to the ‘Emotional Health Academy’ (EHA) and the family to ‘Family Focus’ for help. X annotated a copy of her statement. This was the statement that should have been sent to the EHA. In fact, the Council sent an unannotated version which upset Mrs C.
35. After the ICPC, Mr and Mrs C signed an agreement which said Mr C would not drink while in sole charge of the children. If he was drunk at home and became abusive, he would leave. If he refused, Mrs C would remove the children. Mrs C would contact the police. If Mr C had been drinking outside the home and become abusive, he would not go home.
36. Mrs C made a formal complaint about the contents of the report prepared for the ICPC because there were so many errors in it.
37. In late January 2018, a review child protection conference (RCPC) was planned. The Council should have given Mr and Mrs C a copy of a report prepared for this conference five days in advance. In fact, Mrs C says and I accept, an officer told her no report had been written and the RCPC would probably be postponed.
38. In fact, the RCPC was not postponed and on the day before, the Council gave Mr and Mrs C the report. Mrs C says it was clearly rushed and contained many of the same errors as the original report. Mrs C has described it as ‘the original ICPC report again with a few added paragraphs’. It said:
1. Social worker visits had been missed.
2. The family had requested a new social worker. The Council would provide one.
3. Mrs C knew Mr C had an alcohol problem which posed a risk to the children but did not want to end the relationship because she feared the ‘unknown’.
4. There were other constraints upon the family. They seemed to have limited financial resources as Mr C did not work and was abusing alcohol.
5. The Council remained concerned that the children were at risk of emotional abuse due to Mr C’s drinking.
6. Both children were well-presented, articulate and likeable.
7. The risk to the children was increased because the toxic trio (alcohol abuse, low mood and a history of domestic violence) were present. Mr C was not accessing support for his drinking. There was limited support available.
8. The parents were dissatisfied with children’s services.
9. There had been a report suggesting that the parents minimized domestic violence and the impact this had on the children.
39. In the ‘analysis’ section, it said:
• Both children said they could remember their father being drunk, shouting and throwing things throughout their lives;
• Mrs C had to work away from home sometimes and the children were concerned about being alone with Mr C; and
• Mr C had agreed not to drink while he was caring for the children but Mrs C was concerned he would not stick to it so worked from home when she could.
• Because of Council failures, the children remained at significant risk of harm.

Dispute

40. Mr and Mrs C contacted the Council about the RCPC report three days later saying it was ‘so inaccurate as to not be fit for use’. In February 2018, Mrs C and Mr C sent comments to the Council. They said:
• The assault occurred in 2015, not 2016. Mr C had accepted a caution. He had not been convicted or fined.
• The report contained a great deal of speculation rather than fact;
• The details of the children’s progress at school was incorrectly recorded;
• Mr C was not unemployed. They were well-off and had no money worries;
• The Council had failed to progress a referral to a family focus service;
• The Council had consistently let the family down with missed appointments, late service and failures of communication.
• The family did not play down the incident from 2015 but it was one incident that had occurred more than two years previously.
• Because of Council errors, they had lost faith in the process;
• It was impossible for the Council to say, as it did, that the situation had not improved as no one had checked.
• The Council had not delivered the report to the family five days before the conference as it should have but only one day in advance.
41. Following Mrs C’s complaint about the report prepared for the ICPC in November 2017, the Council sent her a copy of the ICPC report and asked for their comments on it. Mrs C says the Council has still not amended this report despite the many errors in it. Mrs C replied within a few days to say that the report
1. Numerous dates and spellings were wrong as were various facts;
2. Mrs C had not said several of the comments ascribed to her;
3. Opinions recorded in the report were unevidenced and incorrect; and
4. Mr C questioned the basis for some of the claims about his alcohol use.

Single assessment

42. The Council completed a child and family single assessment at the end of January 2018. This stated:
1. Mr C had had issues with alcohol dating back to 2008;
2. The Council suspected Mr and Mrs C minimized the domestic violence;
3. Mr C had low mood. The ‘toxic trio’ increased risk;
4. There had been some improvement since the plan started in November; but
5. Both X and Y reported anxiety caused by Mr C’s drinking particularly when Mrs C was away for work reasons. The children were therefore at risk of significant emotional harm.
43. The report recommended X and Y should remain on protection plans.
44. The document said both parents were dissatisfied with children’s services but this would be addressed through the complaints process.

Stage one complaint

45. Mrs C complained to the Council about the Council’s handling of the investigation so far in early January 2018. The Council provided a stage one response in mid-February 2018. The Council said:
1. The ICPC report had been shared with the family promptly. A new social worker would go through the report with the family and remove factual errors.
2. If X and Y wished to complain about the independent advocate’s statements, they should do so in their own rights. (Mrs C says no one at the Council ever told her how to do this although I understand they have now done so).
3. It apologised for the poor service.
4. Due to staff absences, the Council could not say whether the referral to the Emotional Health Academy was done in line with policy or, if not, why not.
5. The Council apologised for its poor communication.

Incident March 2018

46. In early March 2018, Mrs C called the police because Mr C was drunk. She later explained she had done so at the suggestion of X and Y who feared that, if she had not done so, she would have been in breach of the terms of the written agreement of November 2017.
47. She later told the Council the police did not have anyone available and so she agreed to fill in a risk assessment form at the police station in the next few days. Mr C had not been violent. He had not been abusive. He had been weird.
48. The Council later agreed that asking Ms C to phone the police if Mr C had been drinking was unfair on her and should be removed from the agreement.

Stage two complaint

49. Mrs C was not satisfied with the Council’s stage one response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She also wrote to the chair of the RCPC to say the minutes of that conference did not accurately record what had occurred.
50. In late April, the Council told Mrs C that her complaint had not been escalated to stage two. It arranged a complaints meeting which was attended by Mrs C and a complaints officer. At the meeting, Mrs C complained that:
• Documents were anonymous and not attributed to their authors;
• Documents had not been shared with her as soon as they should have been;
• There were numerous errors that had not been corrected since the first draft;
• It was not true to say Mr C was an alcoholic;
• Because of mistakes in the original report, the Council was now suffering from ‘confirmation bias’ and finding evidence to support its incorrect assumptions;
• An officer had attempted to talk to her on the phone about Mr C’s alleged drinking problem while she was in a public place.
51. Mrs C said she needed to escalate her complaint because the Council was wrong to focus on Mr C’s drinking. She said she had told officers there were ‘lies’ in the reports and it had refused to remove them but had said it would put explanatory material alongside the original material.
52. On 14 May 2018, X’s advocate wrote to Mrs C and apologised for the service X had received from the first advocate. She said she had met the first advocate who said she had misinterpreted what X had said and should have read her notes out to X before sending them to the meeting.
53. In late May 2018, X attended a review conference with Council officers at which she said that the chairman of the November child protection conference had read out parts of her statement which she had wanted removed. She said, ‘some of the things upset my dad and it wasn’t what I wanted said’.
54. X asked why she had not been allowed to address the meeting herself. A Council officer told her that this had been so that the conference could speak freely about her. Mrs C contrasts this with what the chair said at the RCPC.
55. Mrs C says the Council has suppressed X’s views.

Stage two complaint - Independent investigation

56. Mrs C escalated her complaint to stage two, an independent investigation. After a thorough investigation, the investigator issued his final report in mid-October 2018. He found fault with the Council in several areas. These are recorded below alongside the Council’s response:
1. There had been factual inaccuracies in the initial report, some of which had been ‘significant’ which had not been corrected and were repeated in subsequent reports. The Council agreed and apologised.
2. There had been unacceptable delay in carrying out statutory social work visits. The family was not informed of changes and cancellations.
   The Council agreed and apologised.
3. X had amended a version of the report with her comments which she wished to be sent to the Emotional Health Academy along with her referral. The amendments were significant and, Mrs C says, greatly altered the sense of the document. In fact, the Council sent the original, unamended report.
   The Council agreed that this has occurred and apologised.
4. It was impossible to substantiate Mrs C’s claim that an officer had lied at the time of the referral to the Emotional Health Academy.
57. The investigator noted that children’s services’ working practices were ‘chaotic’ at the time of the initial referral. The initial social worker missed deadlines for visits. The Council had issued guidance to staff about minimum standards and procedures. It also introduced a new procedure on respectful working.
58. The investigator made recommendations which are reproduced below with Council reaction to them:
1. The children’s services department should introduce the new manager’s action plan within six months; The Council agreed.
2. Mrs C should be provided with a copy of the investigation report and a formal apology; The Council agreed.
3. The Council should give Mrs C a more detailed explanation for the missed and cancelled appointments. The Council agreed.
4. The Council should provide Mrs C with all copies of amended records of meetings and a copy of the EHA referral, along with amended reports if necessary. The Council agreed.
59. Mrs C then had a meeting with a Council officer and the investigator to try to find the answers to issues raised in the investigation report as she felt that these questions were not answered satisfactorily at the meeting, she made a further complaint asking:
• How, in the early stages of the investigation, the Council had come to believe that there was an atmosphere of ‘fighting and arguing’ in her household
• What briefing an advocate had received before speaking to her children
• Why an officer had visited their home unannounced when her children were not on a protection plan and there had been no police report; and
• What conclusions the Council drew from the fact that Mrs C would not speak about the case when she had been contacted by a social worker while on a train.
60. The Council sent Mrs C a letter in early November 2018 to fulfil its undertaking to meet the recommendations of the independent investigation. In it, it responded to some of her questions about the investigation and the shortcomings with it and proffered apologies for its failures.
61. This letter did not satisfy Mrs C. She sent back an annotated copy of the letter requesting further information and found fault with the wording of the apology which stated; ‘I am sorry that your experience of [council actions] was poor’. Mrs C said the Council should apologise for its own actions, not her experience.
62. In February 2019, a team manager at the council also apologised to Mrs C. She said that, as far as the Council was concerned, it had now apologised adequately.
63. Mrs C continued to pursue the Council throughout 2019 about the Council’s failures. She has asked for:
• Minutes of the initial s. 47 meeting.
• Details of interviews and notes.
• Clarification of who attended various meetings.
65. A further review conference was held in September 2018. It heard that X and Y continued to do well at school and that Mr C’s drinking had reduced. The chair recommended that children’s services involvement should cease which it has. Mrs C complains that she was not informed of the meeting and so could not attend.
66. Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Generally poor service

67. Mrs C says the Council provided a poor service. Officers missed appointments and communicated poorly. She says four social workers handled the case.
68. The Council has accepted that the service it provided fell short of the acceptable standard. It says its processes at the relevant time were ‘chaotic’. It has apologised to Mrs C on several occasions and has introduced a new protocol to encourage its officers to treat families with respect. It has offered Mrs C £250 in recognition of that fault.
69. It was not the council’s fault that officers fell ill and left the department. Mrs C says each time an officer left, ‘we were back to square one’. While I appreciate how frustrating this must have been, this was not, in itself, the Council’s fault though it will have contributed to the fault there was.
70. Mrs C says that, while the departures were unforeseeable, they should have been managed better. I accept that this is the case. The Council has accepted that the department was chaotic at this time and the evidence bears this out.

Delay in preparing single assessment report

71. The Council has accepted there was delay and has apologised.

Factual errors in report

72. Mrs C complains about factual errors in documents the Council prepared. She also complains about the presence of assumptions unsupported by evidence.
73. Errors made in the preparation of a document are not necessarily fault. Reports are written under time pressure and mistakes are inevitable. However, they should be avoided where possible and, if they are factually incorrect, amended.
74. The Council accepts Mr C assaulted Mrs C in 2015, not 2016. It accepts Mr C was cautioned not convicted of the assault. It accepts that the family does not have money worries. The Council has apologised for these errors.

Confirmation bias

75. Mrs C believes that, collectively, these errors led the Council to make assessments which it later clung to, even though the original facts were wrong, due to ‘confirmation bias. I do not believe that the evidence supports this claim.
76. Having received the referral from the school, the Council had no choice but to investigate. When it began that investigation there seemed to be three central material facts:
• Mr C drank more than most people.
• Mr C had assaulted Mrs C when drunk.
• X told her school she was worried by the way Mr C behaved when drunk.
77. It was Mr C’s drinking, the admitted assault and observation of the family that led to continuing children’s services involvement.
78. Mrs C now says Mr C’s drinking may not have been that excessive. Nonetheless, given the evidence before them and their duty towards children, the Council was not at fault for the professional opinions of its officers that the risk to the children justified further involvement. This was an opinion open to them on the facts.
79. Mrs C suspects that reports may have been compiled using incorrect assumptions based on irrelevant factors. I have seen no evidence to support this view. In my view, the reports included background details, some of which proved to be incorrect but the assessment of risk focused on the relevant issues.

Opinion

80. A child protection report will, inevitably, contain opinion because it involves an assessment of the likelihood of future events. Indeed, the purpose of the reports is for professionals to provide their views on risk, which are matters of opinion. Therefore, the inclusion of opinion cannot be a reason for finding fault.
81. Whether or not Mr C’s drinking posed a risk was a matter of opinion. I cannot find fault with children’s services for finding that it was.
82. The reason the investigation began was Y’s complaint about Mr C’s drinking. At the child protection conference in November 2017, Mr C accepted X’s statement that she had been upset by his drinking.
83. The Council was also concerned about the ‘toxic trio’: alcohol, low mood, and domestic violence which, experts believe is a risk indicator. Whether this was present was also, to an extent, a matter of opinion. But Mr C had admitted assaulting Mrs C. He admitted he drank more than most people and the records showed a history of ‘low mood’. This was not an unreasonable opinion.
84. Children’s services departments make risk assessments not moral judgments. Statistical evidence suggests that those that have already been violent when intoxicated are more likely to be so again than the general population. Statistics also show that, when the ‘toxic trio’ is present, there is an increased risk to children. Therefore, councils are entitled to consider the presence of the former when assessing the risk of the latter.
85. The investigation showed that the children are high achievers and that both parents are committed to the children. But they also found Mr C’s drinking posed a risk of emotional abuse to the children. This was a matter of professional opinion. The Ombudsman does not generally find fault with such opinions unless they clearly fly in the face of the facts.
86. Mrs C says the Council wrongly claimed she had said she was worried about leaving the children with Mr C. The Council says Mrs C did say this and that she mollified Mr C to avoid escalating tension. Mrs C denies these are the same thing.
87. On the evidence, the Council was not at fault. Mrs C may consider her concern was insufficient to justify finding the children were at risk, but, again, that is a matter of professional opinion so I do not find fault.

Persistence of errors in subsequent reports

88. The records show that officers have addressed the issues and kept the situation under review. Their views on the risk posed by Mr C’s drinking have evolved and officers questioned whether they were any longer at risk. Indeed, the Council has ceased its involvement due to the reduced risk.
89. Mrs C would like the records amended so that the disputed words and facts are removed. The Council says it has amended disputed facts but will not amend disputed opinions. There is no fault in this position providing it has in fact done so. Single reports are not accusations. They are used by children’s services professionals to assess risk to children.

Poorly conducted child protection conferences

90. Mrs C says the chair of the ICPC misrepresented the views of X and Y. The Council says she did not. There is a conflict of evidence and I cannot uphold this complaint either.
91. The Council has accepted that it was fault to attach X’s full statement, which was not agreed, to the minutes of the initial conference and has apologised but I do not accept that there was significant injustice as a result and there is no remedy that the Ombudsman could recommend to remedy it.
92. Mrs C says X and Y have found the overall process distressing. I accept that this must have been the case. However, as the Council had no option but to investigate having received the referral and as its investigation overall, despite errors made, was proportionate and fair, I cannot find fault.
93. Mrs C has provided me with recordings of the RCPC. I do not see, having listened to the recordings, that there was fault in the way they were conducted. Mrs C says the chair misled the conference and excluded X from giving her evidence in person. I cannot say that that is true as there is no evidence on the tape to support this claim. I cannot uphold that part of her complaint.

Failure to engage

94. The RCPC report said the family had failed to engage. Mrs C denies this. She says any lack of engagement was caused by Council failings. The Council has accepted it made errors.

Unattributed documentation

95. Mrs C complained that documents were not attributed to named authors. There is no reason to believe these were not genuine council documents and I can see no significant injustice suffered as a result. The Council has accepted that documents should, in future, be signed off by a manager.

Circulating a flawed version of the report to other agencies

96. Mrs C also says an officer sent the wrong, unannotated version of the ICPC report to the EHA rather than the one which X had annotated. I accept that this occurred as does the Council. It has apologised. It says it cannot explain the error as it no longer has documentation. It has written to staff to tell them of the importance of scanning annotated documents into their system in future to ensure that similar errors do not occur in future.

Preparing inaccurate interview records

97. Mrs C says her children say the statements prepared on their behalf were inaccurate. The independent agency that prepared the reports accepts that there were errors with these statements but they were not Council employees.

Poor communication

98. The Council has apologised for errors in communication. I agree there was some poor communication.

Complaint handling

99. I have found the Council’s complaint handling to be diligent and thorough.

Remedy

100. Mrs C wants apologies from individual officers. The Ombudsman does not usually recommend this. Our jurisdiction is over councils, not individuals. Therefore, we recommend that the apology should come from the Council.

Agreed Action

101. The Council has agreed that, within four weeks of the date of this decision it will write to Mrs C providing:
• a cheque for £250;
• an apology; and
• A list of all the action points previously promised, including in response to her complaints. For each point, it should state whether it has complied, if so when, if not when it will or why it cannot.
• The points should include:
1. Removal of false statements from ICPC and other reports;
2. a more detailed explanation for the missed and cancelled appointments;
3. copies of amended records of meetings;
4. Details about the EHA referral if available;
5. An apology for X following her complaint to the Council which was upheld.
102. It should send a copy of the letter to the Ombudsman:

Back to top

Final decision

103. I have decided the Council was at fault. I The Council has accepted my recommendations to remedy its fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

104. Given the fact that the Information Commissioner has jurisdiction over the amendment of records, I have not investigated this part of the complaint. I have also not looked at the professional complaint against the conference chair.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman