Summary: Despite finding in Mr C’s favour, when investigating his complaint about children’s social care services, the Council did not do enough to recognise the impact the issues had on him. The Council has now agreed to offer Mr C an appropriate financial remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the outcome of his complaint about children’s social care services. Mr C says the Council did not properly consider the impact the issues had on him when deciding on its remedy.
2. Mr C says his relationship with his daughter has been ruined and he has faced financial hardship and distress due to the issues identified in his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
4. 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. 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)
6. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint.
8. I also issued a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Councils’ duties towards children

9. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
10. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47). A child protection enquiry will start with an assessment of the family circumstances and may move on through Strategy Meetings and a Child Protection Conference, which may decide on a Child Protection Plan.
11. These duties are set out in Statutory Guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’. When a council children’s social care service receives a referral about a child who may be at risk of significant harm it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. This will include determining whether:
• the child requires immediate protection and urgent action is required.
• the child is in need, and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989;
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, and enquiries must be made and the child assessed under section 47 of the Children Act 1989;
• any services are required by the child and family and what type of services;
• further specialist assessments are required in order to help the authority to decide what further action to take;
• no further action is required.

Children’s services complaints

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation).
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

14. Mr C had a daughter with his ex-partner. I shall refer to Mr C’s daughter as Z, and his ex-partner as Ms X. Mr C and Ms X’s relationship ended in 2007, and he ceased contact with Z in 2011.
15. Approximately a year after contact had ceased between Mr C and Z, Ms X alleged that Z had told her that Mr C had sexually assaulted her. Z later repeated these allegations to a Social Worker.
16. The Council completed an assessment, which concluded that Z was a child in need. A care plan was developed, and a social worker allocated, who made visits to Ms X & Z.
17. Six months later, a child in need review concluded the work with the family had been completed, and the case could be closed.
18. Mr C remained estranged from Z, until 2017 when Z contacted Mr C via social media.
19. Ms X subsequently told Mr C he could not see Z due to safeguarding concerns, and that he would need to contact the Council, which he did.
20. Mr C subsequently initiated court proceedings in relation to contact with Z.
21. In 2018, the Council carried out a further assessment of Z. They visited Z at home and spoke to Ms X at the beginning of the assessment but did not inform Mr C that the assessment was being conducted, and he only later found out through a third party.
22. The Court proceedings concluded and found that the allegations against Mr C were unfounded, and Ms X had coached Z into making them. Costs were awarded against Ms X.

Complaint about 2012 assessment

23. Mr C made two formal complaints to the Council. The first was about how the Council had responded to the allegations in 2012. The Council considered this under the first two stages of the children’s social care complaints procedure. Mr C did not request a Stage 3 review in time so one was not completed.
24. The Council upheld almost all of Mr C’s complaint, making the following findings:
• The Council failed to tell him about the allegations made about him.
• The Council failed to include him in Z’s assessment.

Complaint about 2018 assessment

25. Mr C’s second complaint was predominantly about the assessment the Council carried out in 2018. The Council considered this complaint under all three stages of the children’s social care complaints procedure.
26. Mr C’s complaint included the following allegations:
• The Council failed to inform him that the 2018 assessment was taking place, and his views had not been sufficiently considered during the assessment.
• The assessment was biased as it reflected Ms X’s views but not his.
• The assessment contained inaccuracies and was misleading.
27. The outcomes he wanted to achieve included:
• Changes to the Council’s policies to ensure both parents’ views are included in their children’s assessments.
• Inaccurate records to be amended.
• To receive an apology for the Council’s shortcomings.
• To receive compensation from the Council for the financial hardship and distress the situation has caused him.
28. By the end of the complaints process the Council accepted the conclusions of the stage 3 Review Panel. These included:
• There were unreasonable delays in speaking to Mr C about the assessment.
• More could have been done during the assessment to obtain his views.
• There were delays in providing Mr C with a copy of the assessment.

The Council’s implemented remedies

29. The Council implemented remedies in relation to Mr C’s complaint about the 2012 assessment. These included:
• An apology for the Council’s failings in relation to Z’s assessment in 2012. This was subsequently provided by the Service Manager.
• Assurances that service improvements had been introduced since 2012, in relation to the inclusion of all parents during assessments.
30. The Council also implemented remedies in relation to Mr C’s complaint about the 2018 assessment. These included:
• An apology, at director level, for the failings in relation to Z’s assessments in 2012 & 2018.
• The implementation of specific service improvements, to ensure the inclusion of both parents during assessments.
• The Service Manager to be informed if any further issues arise regarding Z, and for that manager to have oversight of the case.

Analysis

31. When a Council has investigated something under the three stage statutory complaints procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
32. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation. I have therefore considered Mr C’s view that the Council should offer a financial remedy for the impact of its failings on him.
33. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council said that, having now considered the issue of a financial remedy, it was willing to offer Mr C a payment of £750 to remedy the faults identified in the 2012 assessment, and to a lesser extent the 2018 assessment.
34. Mr C has indicated that he has suffered financially as a result of the court cases he perused, due to him missing work opportunities as a result of having to attend court. He has also said the lack of a relationship with his daughter has caused him distress.
35. The Ombudsman can only recommend a financial remedy where the injustice to the complainant is a direct result of fault by the Council. In this case I cannot say the legal proceedings were a direct consequence of the faults identified in this case. Therefore, I do not consider I have grounds to recommend that the Council cover these costs.
36. Furthermore, I do note that the Court awarded costs when making its decision. Ultimately the award of costs associated to legal proceedings are a matter for the Courts and not the Ombudsman.
37. Mr C has also experienced a great deal of distress through him not having a relationship with his daughter. But, again, I could not reasonably conclude on the evidence I have seen that this was a direct result of the Council’s failings. So, I do not consider it appropriate to recommend a payment to recognise this distress.
38. Nevertheless, the Council has accepted that on two occasions it failed to properly include Mr C in the assessment process. This has led to missed opportunities, causing Mr C a distress, which in my view warrants a financial remedy.
39. An injustice such as distress is difficult to remedy, so we often seek a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of fault on a complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance says that any remedy should reflect the circumstances of the case, including the severity of the distress and the length of time involved. It says payments are often between £100 and £300 but in severe circumstances can be as high as £1000.
40. Having considered the distress identified in this case, I consider that the distress Mr C has suffered to have been severe enough to warrant a higher payment than £300 and have therefore conclude that the Council’s offer of £750 to be a sufficient remedy.

Agreed action

41. The Council has agreed, that within one month of the date of my final decision, it will offer to pay Mr C £750 to remedy the distress identified in this report.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault leading to an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman