Summary: Miss X complains of fault in the way the Council responded to a disclosure by her daughter, Z about the child’s father. She says this led to her having to move and being unable to work. There were some faults in procedure, which the Council accepts. It has already apologised for most of these, but it will also apologise for failing to send on minutes of core group meetings.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to a safeguarding referral about her daughter, Z.
2. Specifically, she says it:

• Failed to contact the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for safeguarding in the area where she worked with vulnerable adults:
• Failed to consult professionals and others who could have provided context;
• Failed to keep notes of core group meetings; and
• Failed to provide financial assistance with moving costs as promised.

3. Miss X also complains the Council took until 25 September 2019 to send her minutes of the Initial Child Protection Conference. She says these minutes showed the Council had miscalculated the votes and her daughter should not have been subject to a Child Protection Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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)

6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989 and made written enquiries of it. I considered the Council’s response to those enquiries and the records it provided. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties, invited their comments and considered those I received.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. Miss X’s daughter, Z, disclosed physical harm by her father. The complaint concerns the Council’s response to that disclosure. The Council accepted some procedural fault before the complaint came to the Ombudsman.

What happened

10. In each point below, I consider what should have happened, what did happen and if it was fault.

Contacting the LADO in the area where Miss X worked

11. As Miss X worked with vulnerable adults, the Council should have contacted the LADO. It accepted it did not do this and apologised when it responded to Miss X’s complaint.

Consulting professionals and other who could have provided context

12. It is a matter for those involved in considering what action to take who they consult. In this case, I have seen evidence of the professionals consulted. While Miss X says the Council should have consulted others, that is a matter of disagreement rather than fault.

Keeping notes of core group meetings

13. Councils are expected to keep notes of meetings, not only in child protection cases. The Council provided notes of two core group meetings, one a month after the disclosure, another two months after. The Council ended the child protection plan before the next due date. I do not find the Council at fault for failing to keep notes.
14. However, when I supplied these notes to Miss X, she said she had never seen them before. This is supported by the notes of the second meeting recording Miss X as stating she had not seen any notes of the first. The Council accepted in response to my further enquiry that it had no evidence it had sent Miss X the notes. This was fault.
15. Miss X feels the Council might have fabricated the notes. She says this because the version the Council provided referred to her new address, which was not known at the time of the meeting. Considering the balance of probabilities, I do not share this view. The second meeting’s notes’ content, including Miss X’s statement about not receiving the notes of the first meeting, suggests someone took notes of what was said. Even if they were written up much later from scribbled notes, it seems someone still took notes at the time.

Financial assistance

16. Councils may choose for various reasons to provide financial assistance. We would expect them to keep any promises made.
17. I have seen no evidence the Council agreed to provide financial assistance to help Miss X when she moved out of the family home to another area. I have seen no evidence in any of the child protection records the Council placed any restrictions on the family or required Miss X to leave the family home.
18. Instead, the evidence I have seen shows Miss X was planning to move out anyway as her relationship with her partner had deteriorated. This in in the social worker’s record at the time of the disclosure and Miss X’s evidence to the initial child protection conference (ICPC).
19. There is a record that states that moving out might help the situation, but that is not the same as a requirement to do so. And it did not create an obligation for the Council to assist financially. I do not find the Council at fault.

Delay in sending minutes of the ICPC

20. Sending documents without delay is a matter of good administrative practice. The Council accepted before the complaint came to the Ombudsman that it took too long to send the minutes of the ICPC to Miss X. It apologised for this.

Miscounting the votes at the ICPC

21. The Council also accepted when dealing with Miss X’s complaint it had miscounted the votes at the ICPC. It apologised for this error.

Injustice caused by fault

22. While the Council should have contacted the LADO in the area where Miss X worked with children, there was no suggestion she had harmed Z. There was no risk to Z. And the Council was not responsible for Miss X’s leaving her employment. The Council’s apology is therefore sufficient to remedy any injustice caused.
23. The delay in sending the minutes of the ICPC meant it took longer before Miss X spotted the error in counting the votes. The decision to make Z subject to child protection plan unnecessarily would have caused Miss X some distress. However, the Council did not consider Miss X had harmed Z, and the Plan did not place any restrictions on her, her partner, or where Z should live. This means the injustice was therefore limited and the Council’s apology is sufficient.
24. The Council’s failure to send on notes of the core group meetings, while not adding significantly to the injustice, is something for which it has not yet apologised. I make a recommendation below.
25. While the errors here could have been significant in other circumstances, I have seen no evidence they were the result of any deliberate deviation from statutory requirements. The evidence suggests they were simply errors, accepted without reservation by the Council. It confirmed to Miss X it would act appropriately to reduce the risk of a repeat. I do not therefore recommend any further service improvements or changes of policy.

Miss X says Z suffered trauma. I do not doubt that. However, it remains the case the Council received a disclosure of physical harm about Z’s father that required it to consider whether she was at risk of significant harm. The relationship between her parents also broke up. I cannot therefore establish a direct causal link to the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. The Council will apologise within one month of the date of the final decision for failing to send on minutes of two core group meetings.

Final decision

27. I have upheld the first, fifth and sixth points of complaint. I also find the Council failed to send on the minutes of two core group meetings. Apart from the finding about sending the core group minutes, for which the Council will apologise, I do not recommend further remedy beyond that already offered by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman