Summary: the Council accepts its communication with Mr P, a prisoner, about his son, B, a looked after child, has not been good and has apologised. This is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr P, a prisoner, complains about the difficulties he has had communicating with the Council about his son, B. He says the Council has not responded to his letters or to emails from the Prison’s Family Engagement Worker.

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. 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

3. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr P; and
• information provided by the Council.
4. I invited Mr P and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr P is a prisoner. His son, B, is a looked after child. This means the Council has parental responsibility for B. The Council decides when B can see Mr P. Contact between Mr P and B is not a straightforward matter. B is receiving support from CAMHS, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, who will advise when B is ready to see Mr P.
6. Mr P has written to the Council many times about B. He has complained about delays in receiving updates about B’s progress following looked after child reviews. The Council has apologised for the delays. He has complained about the lack of progress in re-establishing contact with B. The Council says that it has been working with mental health services and is working towards re-establishing contact between Mr P and B. The Council explained that contact must be at B’s pace. The Council says positive progress is being made. Mr P has complained about a social worker who did not visit when planned. The social worker apologised and re-scheduled the visit.
7. The Council responded to Mr P’s complaints at the first stage of its complaints process. The Council upheld Mr P’s complaints about the problems with communications. The Council said communication had not been of a standard it expected. The Council apologised. The manager who responded to Mr P’s complaint invited Mr P to contact him directly if there were any further problems.
8. Mr P remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.
9. Since Mr P complained to the Ombudsman, contact between Mr P and B has taken place. The Council acknowledges that Mr P is keen to know the arrangements for future contact, but explained that B will be the focus of future contact arrangements, and the Council will be guided by mental health services working with B.

Consideration

10. The Council accepts its communication with Mr P has not been as good as it expects and has apologised. As a prisoner, with limited opportunity to contact people, the poor communication from the Council will have been a source of considerable frustration to Mr P. Nevertheless, I consider the Council’s response to his complaint, and its apology, a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have ended my investigation. The Council accepts its communication with Mr P has not been good and has apologised. This is a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman