Summary: Ms B complained the Council had failed to arrange Looked After Child meetings from when her child, C, first went into care. It also failed to communicate properly with her or to address complaints she made. This meant she was unable to exercise parental responsibility for C. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to apologise, make a financial settlement and to amend documentation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complained the Council failed to involve her in the Looked After Child (LAC) process. Specifically, she complains that the Council has not followed the LAC process and has not allowed her to exercise her parental rights. She says the Council has refused to engage with her as her child’s legal parent and no LAC review meetings have taken place. Ms B also complains about the Council’s communication with her, about contact issues and about the Council’s delay in responding to her complaint. She says this has caused her a great deal of distress and time and trouble chasing up the Council.
2. Ms B wanted us to look at the Council’s report to the court, which led to the decision to remove her child from her care and issues relating to contact, which can only be looked at by courts. These are outside of our jurisdiction. I explain why they are outside of our jurisdiction at the end of this Statement.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the parts of Ms B’s complaint in relation to the Council’s failure to involve her in LAC meetings and about communication with her and contact as it relates the Council. I have not investigated any of the aspects relating to court matters or issues that could have been raised in court. I explain why I have not done so at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
8. 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)
9. 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:

• 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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

13. I considered Ms B’s complaint and the results of the enquiries made with the Council. I refer to information published by the Family Rights Group and ‘Getting the best from complaints’, 2006. I sent Ms B and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took the comments they made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

14. Ms B’s child, C, lives with Ms B’s ex-partner under a full Care Order, which was agreed in court.
15. The Family Rights Group is clear that once a Care Order is in place; “Children’s Services share parental responsibility with you…This means that they should discuss any decisions that need to be made about your child with you. But the social worker always has the final say on important things like where your child should live, even if you don’t agree”.
16. The court has agreed that Ms B can have supervised contact with C on a fortnightly basis. The frequency and timing of contact was established under a contact agreement, which the court accepted. The Council, given it also holds parental responsibility for C, can make decisions about in C’s best interests. This can include suspending or changing contact arrangements. The Council has also decided not to share all information relating to C’s health and education with Ms B on the grounds this would not be in C’s best interests. This is a matter of professional judgement. Ms B is able to go to court if she disagrees with the measures the Council has put in place.
17. Ms B made thirty-two complaints to the Council, which were investigated at Stage Two of the statutory complaints process. I am looking at twenty-five of these complaints and two additional complaints about contact being made up when it does not take place and complaint handling.
18. I consider the investigation at Stage Two was sufficiently robust to enable me to rely on the evidence provided within it. This statement considers each of Ms B’s complaints in turn and, for ease of reference, the same numbering as in her Stage Two complaint has been maintained. The Stage Two investigation upheld one complaint, made no finding on one complaint, partly upheld four complaints and did not uphold nineteen. This investigation has upheld four complaints, made no finding on two complaints, partly upheld six complaints and did not uphold thirteen complaints. I have also found the Council at fault in failing to make up missed contact and in its complaints handling.
19. I have not considered Ms B’s complaints numbered 11, 26 and 28 to 32. I explain why I have not done so at the end of this statement.

Complaint 1: Ms B is upset that she was not invited to the first or second LAC Review in respect of C even though she has parental rights for C.

The first LAC review

20. The Stage Two report says that the first LAC Review was held on 4 October 2018 at Ms B’s ex-partner’s home. Ms B was contacted about this by letter on 27 September. The Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), who is responsible for chairing these meetings, agreed to meet with Ms B following the meeting at 4pm. This was later changed to 3pm in accordance with Ms B’s wishes. The Stage Two report says Ms B did not attend the meeting or answer telephone calls from the IRO asking where she was.
21. The Council has informed me it was a matter of professional judgement to split the meeting and hold Ms B’s section after the meeting with her ex-partner. It would have been appropriate for the Council to seek to involve Ms B prior to rather than after the meeting to enable her to express her views and for those views to be relayed in the meeting.
22. Given the poor relationship between Ms B and her ex-partner, it would not have been appropriate for Ms B to attend the meeting itself. Instead the Council decided the meetings should be split so Ms B attends one part and her ex-partner attends the other. This is not evidence of fault.
23. There is evidence of fault in the Council failing to seek Ms B’s views prior to the first LAC Review. This caused Ms B distress and the Council should apologise.

The second LAC review

24. The Stage Two investigation report says: “There is a case note dated 17 December 2018 which records that the IRO and Ms B met as part of the second Child Looked After Review for C. The first part of that meeting was held on 13 December 2018 with (Ms B’s ex-partner) and other professionals, with a pre-meeting being scheduled with Ms B on 12 December 2018”.
25. There is no fault by the Council. Meeting with Ms B prior to the Review meant her views were able to go forward into the meeting.
26. Complaint 1 should have been partially upheld.

Complaint 2: Ms. B is concerned that she was not informed about the first LAC Review meeting until after it had occurred, and she was sent the write up from that meeting.

27. The Stage Two investigation report established Ms B had been informed about the first LAC Review meeting by letter. I have no evidence to bring that into doubt.
28. Ms B was, however, only sent the notes of the first meeting on 31 January, which is late as it was after the second LAC Review had taken place. This is fault but there is no injustice to Ms B as she would have been made aware of what happened at the first meeting prior to the second. Given the Stage Two investigator says the Council’s aim is to issue minutes from meetings such as these within twenty working days, the Council did not follow its policy on this occasion, which is fault. It should apologise to Ms B. The Council has now told me how it intends to keep to its policy going forward and no further action is necessary.
29. Complaint 2 should have been partially upheld.

Complaint 3: Ms. B is concerned that the notes for the first LAC Review were written up prior to the meeting itself.

30. Ms B did not attend the first LAC Review so could not know whether the notes were written up prior to the meeting. On the balance of probabilities, however, the document Ms B refers to here is the Social Worker’s report to the LAC Review meeting, which would have been written prior to the meeting.
31. There is no evidence of Council fault. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

Complaint 4: Ms. B is concerned about the attendees at the first LAC Review, specifically that only the IRO and Social Worker being in attendance; the role of the Health Visitor in that meeting and the attendance of C which she feels was inappropriate and contrary to the position taken by the Family Court.

32. The Stage Two investigation says that “on 20 November 2018, the IRO explained in a written response to Ms B why the IRO and social worker were the only professionals in attendance at the first LAC Review. This states that ‘There are not many professionals involved with C and those involved were invited to the Child Looked After Review. The Health Visitor was invited but was unable to attend’”.
33. There is no evidence of fault. As this meeting was held in her ex-partner’s house, C would likely have been present. If C had shown signs of distress or concern, the professionals present would have asked for the meeting to be ended.
34. If Ms B believes the Family Court would not have agreed; she would need to refer that back to the court for a view.
35. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

Complaint 5: Ms. B is concerned that she has not received the minutes from third LAC Review despite requesting them.

36. The third LAC Review, held on 28 June 2019, was held two weeks late. This is fault but there is no injustice to Ms B who was given advance notice of it and able to convey her views.
37. The Stage Two investigator noted: “The third LAC Review meeting was held on 26 June 2019. The minutes from this meeting were issued on 22 July 2019. Case records show that the IRO met with Ms. B on 18 June 2018 to discuss the review and C’s care plan. (The Council) aim(s) to issue the minutes from Child Protection and Child Looked After meetings within 20 working days of the Review. These minutes were completed in this timeframe and I therefore do not uphold this complaint”.
38. The Council has said the minutes were issued to all attendees on the same date. Although the Council is responsible for sending them; it is not responsible for delivering them. I am not finding the Council at fault. The complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.
39. If Ms B has not received these minutes, despite asking the Council to send them, she is able to go to the Office of the Information Commissioner as the agency best placed to consider the matter.

Complaint 6: Ms. B is concerned about the Initial Health Assessment being completed for C without her knowledge and despite requesting a copy of this document did not receive it for some months.

40. Health Assessments are statutory requirements and should take place once a child becomes Looked After. According to the Stage Two report C’s health assessment was completed in September 2018. This would have been arranged by the Council and Ms B’s ex-partner because that was where C was living. However, information needs to be gathered beforehand so Ms B should have been told it was taking place and been able to give her views about C’s health and health needs. This is fault and the Council should apologise for the distress caused to Ms B in finding out this had been completed without her input.
41. The investigating officer at Stage Two identified “there was some delay between its completion and Ms. B receiving a copy of that assessment and therefore I partially uphold this complaint”.
42. Considering there is no clear reason why Ms B was not told about this or asked to give her views and that there was a delay in her receiving a copy once it was completed, I consider this is fault by the Council. Ms B was caused distress and the Council should apologise. This complaint should be upheld.

Complaint 7: Ms. B is concerned that C is being assessed by an unfamiliar Health Visitor and GP and that the assessment has been sent to prospective adopters.

43. The decision has been made not to disclose the name of C’s Health Visitor or GP to Ms B. The Council is not at fault for this as it is a decision it is able to make using its professional judgement. C’s plan for permanence is to be permanently looked after by Ms B’s ex-partner and the Council rather than being adopted.
44. There is no evidence of Council fault.
45. This complaint was not upheld and I agree.

Complaint 8: Ms. B is concerned that she has not received information about C’s Personal Education Plan or been invited to a meeting to discuss this plan.

46. The decision has been made not to disclose details of where C is being educated to Ms B. However, I have seen evidence that educational matters are discussed in LAC Reviews, which allows Ms B to keep up to date with C’s progress.
47. This complaint was not upheld and I agree.

Complaint 9: Ms. B states she has been prevented from bringing an advocate with her to Child Looked After Reviews and Contact Planning Meetings.

48. The Stage Two report says: “Based on this evidence, it is established that Ms. B’s advocate has been allowed to attend appropriate meetings subject to any legal proceedings to which they were not be (sic) party”. The evidence shows the Council was guided by appropriate legal advice. I consider, because of this, Ms B could have challenged its decision in court if she believed its advice was wrong. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

Complaint 10: Ms. B is concerned that the first IRO allocated to support C was not independent and that they wanted to ‘eradicate’ her from C’s life.

49. The Stage Two report notes that Ms B provided no evidence to suggest the IRO ‘was not independent’. Ms B has contact with C, agreed by the court, which assures her of a place in C’s life. There is no evidence of Council fault.
50. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

Complaint 12: Ms. B also has concerns about the venue for supervised contact – specifically that: it is unclean; the toys are dirty and unsafe; that it is a long distance from her home – even when a suitable Children’s Centre could be used that was local to her but had not been considered.

51. The Stage Two report says “Children’s Services’ professional view is that the location has been chosen in the best interests of C…Staff have carried out appropriate assessment of the location and facilities as part of their decision-making processes and as part of the Stage 1 complaint process the Service Manager carried out her own review of the facility”. I note that the contact centre is closest to C’s home and she feels safe there.
52. Investigating this further will not lead to a different outcome. Miss B would be able to take toys for C if the provided toys did not meet C’s needs. The investigating officer did not uphold this complaint and I agree.

Complaint 13: Ms. B is unclear whether she can give C food during contact. Ms. B that for the first 3 months of supervised contact C was ‘starved’ but is now allowed a snack.

53. The contact agreement signed by Ms B on 7 November 2018 allows her to provide snacks. However, an email was sent on 14 November saying; “I would ask that you do not provide…snacks or chocolate as this upsets (C’s) routine however if you wish her to take this (sic) home with her that is fine”. There is nothing in either document about the need for only ‘healthy’ snacks or, in the email, about snacks at all. I consider this is fault by the Council and it caused distress to Ms B and, on the balance of probabilities, to C too (although there is no evidence of her being ‘starved’). The Council should apologise to both Ms B and C if C remembers being upset by this. I consider this complaint should be upheld.
54. The Council has agreed to review the wording of contact agreements appropriately.

Complaint 14: Ms. B is upset that she is not financially compensated from the outset for travel to and from the contact centre in despite this being noted in the Stage 1 response.

55. Ms B would normally be required to evidence travel costs to the contact centre, so they could be claimed. In the Stage Two report, the Council is quoted as saying that; “to make it easier in this instance, (the Council was) of a view that agreeing the number of miles between Ms B’s home and the contact centre and using a mileage rate utilised by the Local Authority would be the easiest way of making the payment”. I agree.
56. However, the report goes on to say; “Ms B agreed to forward copies of the mileage she had travelled to Children’s Services for authorisation and processing”. It is not clear why she would need to ‘forward copies of the mileage’ if the Council was well aware of the mileage beforehand and intended to ‘agree…the number of miles’.
57. I cannot see, from this, whether it was open to Ms B to claim for mileage from the outset. The Stage Two partially upholds this complaint as it “does appear to have taken too long to be resolved”. Because fault is accepted, the Council should apologise for the time and trouble this caused Ms B. It should ensure Ms B has been fully paid for contact she attended (although this would have to be evidenced) and should also make sure that claiming costs is as simple as possible for Ms B in the future given it knows the mileage she is travelling.
58. I consider this complaint should be partially upheld.

Complaint 15: Ms. B is unhappy that contact planning meetings which are directed to happen every 6 weeks did not take place and feels she is not actively involved in the contact planning process.

59. The Stage Two report says: “The evidence…shows that there was a break between the Contact Review meetings of 20 December 2018 and April 2019. That has been acknowledged by Children’s Services and apologies given in the Stage 1 Complaint response and current case records indicate that a schedule of meetings is now in place with Ms. B involved in that process, therefore in view of the gap in those meetings being held, I partially uphold this complaint”.
60. Given there is an acknowledgement that there has been a gap in contact planning meetings (the investigating officer suggests a gap of around fifteen weeks), I consider this is fault. The Council should apologise to Ms B for the distress it caused. This complaint should be upheld.

Complaint 16: Ms. B is concerned about the judgemental attitude towards her of those Children’s Services staff who oversee her contact with C. Specifically, she feels the feedback from contact sessions is unhelpful and has recently asked for this to end as a result.

61. I cannot question the professional judgement of staff at contact centres whose job it is to oversee contact between children and parents unless that judgement is exercised with fault. I have no evidence of any specific allegations of fault here. Although feedback from contact may be ‘unhelpful’ to Ms B, I consider it is helpful for the Council to consider contact from C’s perspective. The Council has said Ms B does not have to participate in discussing feedback, which is appropriate.
62. The investigating officer did not make a finding on this complaint and I agree.

Complaint 17: Ms. B is concerned that she has had to ask for the notes prepared by the Contact Centre staff following their observations of contact and that these have not been provided to her. She is also concerned that the content of those notes is not fact based and objective and that they contain reference to her and C’s thoughts during contact.

63. I consider Ms B could refer to the Information Commissioner if she believed she was not receiving notes to which she is entitled to or she has concerns with the content of such notes. This is the agency best placed to consider the matter. I am not reaching a finding on this complaint for that reason.

Complaint 18: Ms. B is concerned that she was not initially allowed to take photographs of C during contact meetings but is now. Ms. B is upset however that she is not allowed to video C.

64. This is a matter of professional judgement. There is no evidence it has been exercised with fault. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

Complaint 19: Ms. B is concerned C is being prevented from seeing their extended family i.e. grandparents; aunties; cousins by making any arrangements for that to happen overly complicated and this is having a devastating impact on C and her extended family members.

65. C’s Care Plan acknowledges the need for C to see extended family members although there needs to be care taken that C is not overwhelmed. I have seen an email of 14 November saying that Ms B should not bring other people to contact unless discussed and agreed, which is appropriate.
66. Contact, however, is a matter for the court. If Ms B believes C is having insufficient contact with extended family, she is able to go to court and ask for this.
67. Given the information the investigating officer considered, I agree with the finding of not upheld.

Complaint 20: Ms B is concerned that her sister – D – has not been assessed as a supervisor of contact and there has been a lack of flexibility from Children’s Services staff to facilitate this to enable the contact to fit around her sister’s working arrangements

68. The Stage Two is clear that D has been seeing C with Ms B. I asked the Council for more information and I can see it was, at times, difficult for them to communicate with D (on the balance of probabilities, this was likely because of D’s work patterns). I am not finding the Council at fault for this. The Council is not bound to any specific arrangement for contact supervision unless agreed by the court.
69. This complaint was not upheld and I agree.

Complaint 21: Ms. B believes that there have been too many social workers involved with her and C as well as various workers from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS); Contact Supervisors and IROs. She believes this lack of continuity has been detrimental to her and C as the individuals have not had any opportunity to objectively review their situation or to assess the position of Ms B’s ex-partner…Ms. B believes these professionals have relied heavily on the views and case notes of predecessors.

70. CAFCASS becomes involved once a complaint goes to family court. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
71. It is regrettable when lots of officers are involved in a particular case as happened here but this cannot necessarily be prevented. Successive professionals would have ‘relied heavily on the views and case notes of predecessors’ but would also use professional judgement to identify what they thought were the key issues. That is not fault. Ultimately, the key decisions in this case are court decisions. It is these court decisions that would dictate how officers worked with Ms B. There is no evidence of Council fault.
72. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

Complaint 22: Ms. B is concerned that this variety of professionals involved with her and C have not communicated clearly or promptly with her. Specifically, Ms. B states:

She has not had prompt responses to emails and telephone calls and that she has often had to include managers to get a response

She has received mixed messages and inconsistent responses from Children’s Services staff

She has been treated punitively because she has complained or challenged the Local Authority.

Complaint 24: Ms. B does not agree with the arrangements put in place to manage communications between herself and Cumbria Children’s Services staff

73. I am considering both complaints together.
74. I cannot consider any actions of CAFCASS within this complaint.
75. The Council has put in place restrictions on Ms B’s contact with the Council. I can see the reasons why it may have chosen to do this given the issues outlined in the Stage Two report and I do not find it at fault. However, the Council should keep restrictions that are put in place under review and lift them if it feels it is appropriate to do so. We suggest that Councils should review such matters every six months. There is no evidence the restrictions have been reviewed, which is fault. The Council is asked to apologise to Ms B, as this has caused her distress, and to review the restrictions now. I do not consider any additional remedy would be appropriate.
76. If Ms B believes she has been ‘treated punitively’ by the Council, it would be appropriate for her to return to court.
77. Based on my findings, these complaints should be partially upheld.

Complaint 23: Ms. B believes that she was not kept informed in a timely way about a medical issue relating to C and whether C needs an operation. She also believes that the Team Manager should not have agreed to C seeing a specialist about this issue.

78. From reading the Stage Two report, this is a minor medical issue. It was appropriate for C to see a specialist. Information about who C saw was not shared with Ms B, which is not evidence of Council fault.
79. The investigating officer at Stage Two said this complaint was partially upheld given “the time taken to inform Ms. B about this issue. I have not…found any evidence to suggest that the Team Manager’s approval of her ex-partner’s actions (to investigate this further) was inappropriate. Children’s Services have parental responsibility, and they were informed about and discussed the appointment with (Ms B’s ex-partner)”.
80. The failure to tell Ms B quickly is fault and it caused her distress. The Council should apologise.
81. I agree with the finding of partially upheld on this complaint.

Complaint 25: Ms. B is upset that a confidential letter sent to her was incorrectly addressed as the Council did not hold her most up to date personal address.

82. The Stage Two report says: “A written apology had been provided to Ms. B by the Team Manager at the time (and) the Stage 1 response to Ms. B’s complaints also noted the error in respect of this matter and offered a further apology and confirmed that Ms. B’s correct address was noted on Children’s Services systems”.
83. The Council has admitted fault, which caused distress to Ms B. It apologised. The complaint was upheld and I agree. I cannot achieve more for Ms B by investigating this point further.

Complaint 27: Ms. B is concerned that Children’s Services have different meetings with different family members which make communications difficult. She is concerned that she has asked for this to change but this request has been refused.

84. The Stage Two report suggests this is in relation to LAC Review meetings, which are, and can be, split. The Council has also decided not to invite Ms B to Personal Education Plan (PEP) meetings, for example, which it is able to do.
85. This complaint was not upheld and I agree.

Additional complaints

Missed contact has not been made up appropriately

86. The contact agreement Ms B signed in November 2018 says: ‘Should a contact session need to be cancelled at short notice due to staff sickness or other circumstances then a member of staff will endeavour to contact all parties and inform them as soon as possible. An alternative contact arrangement will be made where possible’.
87. From the evidence I have, there was a contact session missed when C had chickenpox so could not attend.
88. The Council told me this would not be made up. As the agreement says an arrangement ‘will be made where possible’ the Council should have approached Ms B’s ex-partner and asked whether having an additional session was ‘possible’. She may not have agreed but that does not mean she should not be asked. This is fault and it has caused Ms B distress. The Council should ask Ms B’s ex-partner if she is willing to allow Ms B an additional contact session to take place after the COVID-19 pandemic. If Ms B’s ex-partner agrees then either an additional session, or an add-on to existing sessions, should be arranged appropriately. The Council should also clarify its wording in contact arrangements if it does not believe this is appropriate going forward.

The Council failed to answer her complaints in a timely way

89. The Council has accepted that it took a long time to address Ms B’s complaints. Although I accept that there were parts of the process, which were outside the Council’s direct control, it should not have taken thirteen months to complete stages one and two. This delay is fault; it is far beyond the statutory timescales set out in ‘Getting the best from complaints’. The Council should apologise for the distress this caused Ms B. I consider a token payment of £150 should be made to acknowledge this.

Agreed action

90. The Council will apologise to Ms B for the fault I have identified in this statement within one month of the date of my decision.
91. The Council will also apologise to C for incorrectly saying Ms B should not bring snacks at contact (if she remembers being upset). It would be appropriate to do this through her social worker. It will do this within three months of the date of my decision and tell me when it has done so.
92. The Council has agreed to consider rewording contact agreements in relation to healthy snacks and in making up contact, which has been missed. This will be relevant after the current COVID-19 restrictions. The Council is asked to begin this process within three months of the date of my decision. The Council will also ask Ms B’s ex-partner whether she would agree with a missed contact session being made up (following the COVID-19 pandemic) within a month of the date of my decision.
93. The Council has agreed to review the contact restrictions on Ms B within a month of the date of my decision.
94. The Council should ensure Ms B has been fully paid for contact she attended (with appropriate evidence) and make sure that claiming costs is as simple as possible for Ms B going forward. It should make the payment within three months of the date Ms B provides her bank details and associated evidence of dates. The Council should also begin a review of how to make claims simpler for Ms B within three months of the date of my decision.
95. The Council should make a payment of £150 to Ms B acknowledge the delay in its complaints handling. This payment should be made within three months of Ms B providing her bank details.

Back to top

Final decision

96. The investigation found evidence of fault leading to injustice. A remedy to that injustice has been agreed.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

97. I did not consider Complaint 11. This was in relation to the timing and frequency of contact, which is a court matter. If Ms B wants to change the frequency and timing of the contact she has with C, she would need to go to court.
98. I did not consider Complaint 26 in relation to a report written by a social worker for the court. As this has been to court, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
99. I did not consider Complaint 28 about a parenting assessment. This information would have gone to the court for it to make decisions about Ms B’s ongoing relationship with C. Going to court places this outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
100. Complaints 29, 30 and 31 are about a safeguarding report, which was not completed or about safeguarding matters pre-dating that report. Ms B could have brought this up in court if she felt the Council had not managed the safeguarding process properly. I am not exercising discretion to consider these complaints now.
101. Complaint 32 is also about safeguarding concerns, which have been considered by the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman