Summary: Mr E complains the involvement of Council social services led to him having less contact with his daughter and that it provided him poor customer service. We have completed this investigation finding no fault by the Council or else that we cannot add to the replies it has given to Mr E’s complaint.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr E’. His complaint concerns the involvement of Council social services in his family life during 2019. In particular, he complains:

• The Council’s involvement led to him having less contact time with his daughter.
• That social workers did not always return his calls promptly and missed appointments with him.

2. Mr E says as a result of the above he was caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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, section 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’. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr E’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and information gathered in a telephone conversation with him.
• Correspondence he had with the Council before we began our investigation. This included correspondence with his MP.
• Written information sent to us by the Council which comprised its social work notes.
• Relevant law or guidance where referred to in the text below.

7. I also gave Mr E and the Council a chance to comment on a draft decision statement setting out my proposed findings. The Council said it had no comments on the draft. I did not receive comments from Mr E.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. The events covered by this complaint took place in 2019, mainly between July and December. Council social services became involved in Mr E’s family life following an incident at his home involving him and his then partner (who I will call ‘Ms F’). Mr E’s daughter (who I will call ‘D’) was at home at the time. The police were called and asked D’s mother to collect her. The Council had concerns D may have witnessed other incidents involving Mr E and Ms F. However, I note the case record explains the Council’s involvement in D’s family life also happened for additional reasons. These did not involve any concerns around Mr E.
9. The Council offered services under Section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989 considering that D was a ‘child in need’. It drew up a plan to support D. Part of that plan involved D having contact with Mr E.
10. The Council reviewed D’s child-in-need plan monthly. The meeting records say Mr E attended a review in July 2019. It says in August 2019 D’s social worker had tried to contact Mr E to invite him to the meeting “to no avail”, so he did not attend. The Council does not record inviting Mr E to the next review meeting in September 2019. Its record says he was invited to the October 2019 review but did not attend.
11. The minutes of meetings record that more than once the Council said it was against D having overnight contact with Mr E. However, this still happened on occasion.
12. I have also read through social work notes to see what contacts the Council had with Mr E separate to the child-in-need reviews.
13. In July 2019 the Council recorded contacts from Mr E where he explained to D’s social worker that D’s mother had stopped him having contact. He went on to meet with the social worker. The notes of the meeting suggest it was social services view at that time that D should not have overnight contact visits with Mr E if Ms F was present. At this time, it appeared Mr E had a satisfactory working relationship with the Council.
14. During August and September 2019, the notes record only limited direct contact between Mr E and the Council. The social work notes record several attempts by officers to contact Mr E. But Mr E also submitted a complaint to say that he had tried to contact D’s social worker without success. He spoke to both a duty social worker and another social worker about this.
15. A further breakdown in communications followed in October 2019. Mr E sent D’s social worker a text message saying as he had not heard from the Council for several weeks he considered the ‘case closed’. In response, D’s social worker sent Mr E a text message saying she had attempted contact and asking him to call. Mr E declined to do so saying he had lost faith in the Council. A further text message exchange followed but it did not resolve this impasse. While at the end of the month Mr E briefly attended the Council offices to take part in a risk assessment, he chose to leave and not complete it.
16. Mr E has told me D’s social worker cancelled two meetings at short notice. On both occasions he had taken time off work to attend. There is nothing in the Council’s notes that refers to these.
17. I noted that also in October 2019 there was a further incident involving Mr E. This incident also involved D’s mother. Subsequently the Council asked Mr E not to pick up D from school. The Council also indicated it would not support Mr E having unsupervised contact with D around that time (the October 2019 child in need review).
18. Also, in October 2019 the Council replied to a complaint Mr E made about its social services. The Council said it would not carry out an investigation. This was because D’s case was ‘under safeguarding proceedings’. The Council has explained to me it was considering escalating its involvement in the case further to the incident described in paragraph 17. Although the Council later resolved this was not necessary.
19. Mr E remained unhappy with the Council’s involvement in his family life and contacted his MP as well as this office. In its response, in December 2019, the Council recognised Mr E had found its involvement in his case distressing. It accepted Mr E had a ‘difficult’ relationship with D’s social worker.
20. But by now events had also moved on. Mr E completed a risk assessment with a different social worker. The Council said it wanted Mr E to work with it so he could enjoy unsupervised contact with D. Mr E told me he considered this response helpful. After December 2019 the Council closed D’s case. Mr E says he currently enjoys regular contact again with his daughter.

My findings

On the complaint about contact

21. I note at the outset that the involvement of social services in family life, when not asked for by the family, can cause distress. The question I must consider is whether the Council acted with fault which may have added distress to this already stressful situation.
22. Clearly what Mr E found most distressing about events in 2019 was the impact it had on his contact with D. I consider the Council could reasonably express a view on contact matters. The Children’s Act 1989 means the Council must always put the needs of the child first. The Council clearly felt that Mr E’s relations with Ms F potentially exposed D to unnecessary distress. It was in D’s interests therefore for the Council to offer advice on this issue.
23. I find some inconsistency in the Council’s position towards contact. The child-in-need plans suggest that more than once the Council wanted all overnight contact between Mr E and D to stop for a while. But the notes imply a less rigid position. In those, the Council said it would not support Mr E’s contact with D if Ms F was present.
24. I consider the Council could have been more consistent in its messages. But I note its involvement had to take account of changing events. So, the message could reasonably change over time.
25. I find no evidence social workers wanted to stop Mr E having all contact with D. If that happened for a time then I find it was as a result of D’s mother choosing to stop such contact and going beyond what the Council thought reasonable. I could not find the Council at fault for her actions.
26. Taking the above into account I do not find fault by the Council when considering this part of Mr E’s complaint. Although the Council may still learn some lessons. I am unclear about is the extent to which the Council promoted Mr E having contact with his daughter subject to the proviso Ms F was not present. The notes do not provide evidence the Council updated Mr E on any contacts it had with D’s mother where contact was discussed. While I cannot find any note saying the Council promised to give feedback to Mr E on this point, it is evident from all the notes that contact was uppermost in his mind during the summer months of 2019. In this context I think it unfortunate the Council could not tell him more about any discussion it might have had with D’s mother where the subject of contact arose. Had it done so, this may have led to a better relationship between Mr E and the Council.

Complaint about communications

27. I note Mr E expressed frustration in trying to contact the Council after August 2019 when the lack of contact with D reached something of a crisis point for him. I see no reason to dispute there were times when Mr E tried to contact D’s social worker without success. I also understand that if D’s social worker failed to attend meetings at short notice this would be frustrating for Mr E.
28. However, I also have no reason to doubt the Council’s records that it tried to contact Mr E on occasion without success. While I cannot criticise it for failing to attend meetings at short notice without evidence to support the claim.
29. I do not consider I can go beyond the Council’s response to Mr E’s MP therefore. This acknowledged the difficult relationship Mr E had with its social worker but also noted Mr E had begun working successfully with another. I also note the Council decided soon afterwards that it could close D’s case. Mr E recognises this as satisfactory.
30. So, I consider further investigation into this part of the complaint would not add to the replies Mr E received via his MP nor lead to a different outcome. It is therefore not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

31. For reasons set out above I have completed my investigation. I do not find fault by the Council or else we cannot add to its replies to Mr E about the matters he has raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman