Summary: Mr X complains the Council took too long to tell him a safeguarding investigation had ended with no action due, and sent letters to the wrong address, preventing him from pursuing contact with his child for longer than needed. There is no evidence the Council sent letters to the wrong address, but it took three and a half months before it told Mr X verbally the safeguarding investigation had ended. It will apologise and pay Mr X £250.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council

• Delayed telling him a s.47 investigation under the Children Act 1989 had concluded;
• Sent letters and assessments to an old address despite him having given it his new address in February 2018; and
• Left inaccuracies in the s.47 report that go beyond names and dates.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the first two points of complaint. I give my reason for not investigating the third point of complaint at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mr X’s complaint and checked some points with him. I considered further information he provided. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the documents it sent me. I considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989. I took account of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under the Local Government Act 1974 and checked whether I could investigate one of the points of complaint. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. Both parties accepted the draft.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Following a referral, the Council carried out a s.47 investigation about possible harm to a child. This concerned Mr X. The investigation concluded there was no reason for further action.

What should happen?

9. When councils with children’s social care responsibilities receive referrals that suggest possible significant harm or risk of significant harm to a child, they must consider if the threshold set out in s.47 of the Children Act 1989 is met. This concerns having reason to suspect the significant harm or the risk of it referred to in the previous sentence. The actions it takes in response will vary according to the nature of and evidence for what is alleged. The purpose of s.47 is not to work out a person’s innocence or guilt of what is reported, but to keep children safe from risk of significant harm.
10. It is a basic requirement of good administration to tell someone who has been the subject of an investigation its outcome as soon as it is safe to do so. It is similarly the case that authorities should use the addresses provided by persons with whom they deal.

What happened, and was it fault?

Delay in telling Mr X about the outcome of a s.47 investigation

11. The Council completed the s.47 investigation by 6 April 2018. There was to be no further action. A record on the file bears this date and asked for Mr X to be sent a letter.
12. The Council has not provided any copy letter to Mr X dated earlier than 5 September 2018. However, Mr X provided his own notes, which include a reference to being told verbally on 20 July 2018 that there would be no further action. This was three and a half months after 6 April 2018.
13. I therefore find the Council told Mr X there would be no further action at least three and a half months later than it should have done. This was fault.

Sending letters to the wrong address

14. Mr X moved to a new house at the beginning on 2018. He says he told the Council about this in a telephone call on 13 February 2019. The Council’s record of the call confirms this, recording his correct new address. The Council says it has not written to any other address since 13 February 2018. I have seen no letter from the Council to Mr X bearing the old address dated after 13 February 2018. I note the email correspondence shows Mr X chased the Council in the summer about not having received a letter. Given what I have seen, while the Council failed to write, I do not find it at fault for writing to the wrong address.

Injustice

15. Mr X says he had very little contact with his daughter for a year and a half and that this was stressful. Much of this relates to the court process and the evidence for the court. This is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
16. However, Mr X could not consider action to increase his contact with his daughter until the s.47 investigation ended. The delay of three and a half months in telling him the s.47 investigation had ended meant he waited longer than necessary to be able to take the action he wished. This was injustice to him in the form of delayed opportunity.

Agreed action

17. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, the Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision:

• Apologise to Mr X for taking three and a half months too long to tell him the s.47 investigation had ended; and
• Pay Mr X £250 for his delayed opportunity to take the action he wished.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have upheld the complaint about delay, but not upheld the complaint about writing to the wrong address. I am closing the case as the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

19. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided the number of a case heard in two family courts and two hearing dates. Family courts routinely ask for any s.47 reports carried out by councils. I therefore find the s.47 report would have been before a court. As such, the content of the s.47 report is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and I have no discretion to consider it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman