Nottinghamshire County Council (19 011 791)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 05 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of a child protection referral about her son. I have completed my investigation. There is some fault by the Council. It should apologise, pay Miss X £450 and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains about the way the Council handled a child protection referral about her son. She says:
  1. the Council did not tell her it was assessing her;
  2. her son’s case was closed based on inaccurate information about the support he was getting from Youth Offending services; and
  3. the Council did not keep her properly informed and delayed in providing documents she requested.
  1. Miss X says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her as a person with dyslexia when making her complaint.
  2. She also complains about how the Council handled her data and says that her privacy was not maintained.
  3. As a result, Miss X says she and her son have experienced anxiety and distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her data. I explain my reasons for this at the end of this decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  1. 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

  1. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint.
  2. I wrote to the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
  3. I referred to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
  4. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Miss X’s son, whom I shall call Mr Y, was subject to a licence which imposed certain conditions on his activity and behaviour. At the time, Mr Y was under 18.
  2. In December 2018, police found Mr Y in a situation which breached his licence conditions. The police told the Council about this under its duty to notify the Council about child protection concerns.
  3. In December 2018, a social worker visited Miss X and her son at home to conduct an assessment. Miss X says the Council did not tell her this was an assessment.
  4. In January 2019, Mr Y went to court and was recalled to prison for breaching his licence.
  5. In February 2019, the Council held a Child in Need meeting. It agreed that Mr Y was a Child in Need. Miss X says she had to ask three times for a copy of the minutes from this meeting.
  6. In April 2019, the Council wrote to Miss X. It said that it was closing Mr Y’s case because of the high level of involvement from the Youth Justice Team.
  7. Miss X says that at the point of the licence breach, Mr Y only saw someone from the Youth Offending Team (YOT) for a few hours a week. She says this cannot be described as a “high level of involvement”.
  8. Miss X complained to the Council about several issues. The Council responded to her complaint in September and again in October 2019.
  9. Miss X was not satisfied with the complaint response and asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two.
  10. In November 2019, the Council told Miss X that it did not consider her concerns as a complaint. Rather, it said she had raised issues about access to records and data.

My findings

The assessment

  1. Miss X says the Council did not tell her it was assessing her when it visited in December 2018. The Council says the social worker spoke to Miss X on the telephone to arrange the meeting and explained the purpose of the visit. The Child and Family assessment (CAF) also records that Miss X consented to the assessment.
  2. I find it likely the Council did tell Miss X it was conducting an assessment. In any event, Miss X says she would not have refused the assessment. So even if I were to find fault, there is no injustice to Miss X.
  3. Similarly, Miss X says she did not consent to her information being shared with other agencies. The CAF form records her as having agreed to this. However, since the Council was conducting a child protection inquiry, it did not need Miss X’s consent to share information. Therefore, there is no injustice to Miss X.

Closing the case

  1. The Council closed Mr Y’s case to children’s services because of the “high level of involvement” of Youth Justice Services. It decided that Mr Y’s needs would be met this way.
  2. Miss X says this information was inaccurate because Mr Y had only been seeing YOT for a few hours a week prior to his recall to prison.
  3. However, the Council decided to close the case after Mr Y had returned to prison. At this point, the Youth Violence and Exploitation Panel and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) had become involved in Mr Y’s case. The Youth Offending Team had indicated that when released, Mr Y would likely be under an intensive supervision order.
  4. These are specialist agencies who work with people with offences. It is not fault for the Council to decide such agencies can best meet Mr Y’s needs.

Communication and providing information

  1. In its letter to Miss X in October 2019, the Council accepted it delayed sending her the minutes of the strategy meeting and a copy of the assessment. It apologised for this.
  2. The delay is fault. However, I do not consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. This is because Miss X had to make several requests for the information. This caused her frustration and unnecessary time and trouble at an already difficult time. In addition to the apology, the Council should pay Miss X £100 to acknowledge this.

The complaints process

  1. The Council’s responses of September and October 2019 refer to Miss X’s complaints. Despite this, when Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage 2, it told her that her concerns were about information and data. It said her concerns should be dealt with by the Information Commissioner and not the Ombudsman.
  2. Miss X had already approached the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). In October 2019, the ICO wrote to Miss X. It said:

“we understand a number of complaints are about the service you have been provided by the council, unfortunately service complaints are not within our remit and we are unable to provide advice on these matters.”

  1. Although parts of Miss X’s complaint were about information and data protection, she had also complained about the service the Council provided her and her son. Furthermore, the Council had already dealt with Miss X’s concerns at stage one as a complaint. Miss X’s confusion and frustration at the Council then telling her she hadn’t in fact made a complaint at all is understandable.
  2. It was fault for the Council not to deal with Miss X’s complaint at stage two of its complaints process. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and confusion and delayed her recourse to the Ombudsman unnecessarily. The Council should apologise to Miss X and pay her £150 in recognition of this injustice.

Reasonable adjustments

  1. Miss X has dyslexia. She says this makes written communication particularly difficult for her. Miss X says that despite this, the Council required her to make her complaints in writing.
  2. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:

“there was no indication from [Miss X] that she had any additional needs, therefore, we were not made aware of the need to make any such adjustments.”

  1. Miss X says she told the Council during several phone calls about her dyslexia. In August 2019, Miss X wrote in an email to the Council “I did ask for information by [post] instead of email because I have dyslexia”. In an email to the Council in October 2019 Miss X said “please don’t forget I have dyslexia”.
  2. By August 2019 at the latest the Council knew Miss X had dyslexia. The Council should have asked Miss X if she needed any reasonable adjustments to access the service. There is no evidence the Council did this. This is fault.
  3. The Council’s failure to recognise that Miss X’s complaint was about both data protection and service provision might have been avoided had it supported her to communicate in the ways she finds most effective. Instead, Miss X struggled to make her complaint understood. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £200 for the unnecessary additional distress this caused.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council should:
    • Apologise to Miss X in writing; and
    • Pay Miss X £450
  2. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
  3. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
    • Ensure customers are given the opportunity to identify any reasonable adjustments they might need. For example, by reminding or training relevant staff to include the question at first point of contact.
  4. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. Fault by the Council caused Miss X an injustice. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I did not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the body best placed to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings