Summary: Miss T complained the Council failed to treat her properly through the child protection process and failed to investigate the complaints she made. This caused her significant distress. The investigation found evidence of fault in the Council’s failure to circulate documentation and in its failure to consider supporting her family when they were without heating and hot water. There is also evidence of fault in the Council’s complaints handling. The Council has agreed to make a financial settlement and to amend procedures going forward.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss T complains the Council failed to treat her properly through the child protection process and failed to investigate safeguarding allegations, and her complaints, appropriately. This caused her significant distress.
2. Miss T also asked us to look at the actions of the Council in relation to a Section 7 report and child protection meetings. She also complained about ‘aggressive action’ by the Council following allegations of fabricated and induced illness and the refusal of the Council to become involved their father’s failure to return the children.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the complaints set out in the first paragraph. I have not investigated the complaints in the second paragraph and I explain my reasons for this 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 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)
8. 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. 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.
10. 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

11. I considered the information Miss T submitted with her complaint and I spoke to her on the telephone. I made enquiries of the Council and assessed its response. I refer to relevant law and guidance here: ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (2018) and the Children Act 1989. I sent Miss T 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

Relevant law and guidance

The child protection process

12. The child protection process is set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018), which supports the Children Act 1989 and subsequent Children Acts. This sets out that concerns about children suggest a strategy meeting is held between professionals first to establish what actions should be taken. The decision can be taken to investigate and to write a report for consideration by an initial child protection case conference. The conference decides whether children should be on a child protection plan. Children are made the subject of child protection plans when and if they are thought to be at risk of harm. This might be from physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse or neglect. The structure of the plan helps to keep a check on the work being done with such children. The aim of a child protection plan is to:
1. ensure the child is safe from harm and prevent them from suffering further harm
2. promote the child’s health and development
3. support the family and wider family members to safeguard and promote the welfare of their child, provided it is in the best interests of the child.
13. This clearly shows the focus is on the child although the family also need to be involved. Reports must be child-focused.

Background

14. Miss T made complaints to the Council about the way she and her children were treated through the child protection process. The Council considered them through its corporate complaints procedure. Miss T remained unhappy so she came to the Ombudsman to ask us to consider whether the Council acted with fault.
15. I have chosen to consider each of her complaints in turn.

Miss T’s complaints

The Council failed to treat her properly through the child protection process

16. We cannot say when recommendations should or should not be made to place children on child protection plans as this is a matter of professional judgement. Councils may decide to call child protection case conferences even where there is a suspicion that allegations may be malicious or false.
17. In Miss T’s case, the Council says a social worker went to see her to give her the report for the initial child protection case conference (ICPCC) on 2 July 2019 and sent her an invitation letter the following day. The ICPCC was held on 11 July 2019. It was good practice for the Council to give Miss T the report as early as possible. The Council says Miss T was upset as she did not think the allegations reached the threshold for child protection intervention but this was for Conference to decide.
18. Miss T says that although the social worker went to see her with the report, she was not told anything about the child protection process. Considering the social worker was in her home, on the balance of probabilities the officer would have explained the process to Miss T. However, I consider there is a lot of information in the public domain about child protection action, which Miss T would have been able to access if she wanted any greater detail. There is no evidence of Council fault.
19. Miss T was unhappy with some of the information contained in the social worker’s report. In particular, she felt the allegations of fabricated and induced illness (FII) against her were wrong given her ex-partner was a domestic violence perpetrator and the court had already considered the allegations were without foundation.
20. There is sufficient detail within the social worker’s report to identify the concerns about the family as a whole. The initial report also details, for example, a report from Miss T’s solicitor who said they witnessed a call from the children (while in her ex-partner’s care) saying they were “scared and wanted to come home”. The police report provides further detail of the circumstances and the allegations, and counter allegations, being made by both parties. In relation to FII, the notes of the Review Conference on 8 October say; ‘no evidence was found to support this concern’, which suggests this was being appropriately reviewed. There is no evidence of fault.
21. Miss T is unhappy there was information from the school within the report saying, for example, she did not go to events or help the children with their homework. I have seen information, that I cannot share with Miss T, to show the social worker did have evidence to suggest this was the case. I am not finding the Council at fault for including this information in the report.
22. The report to the ICPCC says National Health Service (NHS) Safeguarding is ‘compiling a multi-agency chronology’ to see whether there was evidence of FII. There are two letters from Miss T’s general practitioner acknowledging the child’s needs. The ICPCC was inevitably going to be led by health. There is no evidence of Council fault.
23. Miss T wanted the social worker, and the Conference, to take other information into account; a letter from her doctor, a report from a paediatrician saying there was no evidence of fabricated induced illness, school reports and a psychiatric report. The Council has said to me it did not have permission from the court to circulate the psychiatric report whereas Miss T said it did; and that it was asked to consider the contents of the report going forward. If Miss T felt the circulation of the psychiatric report was court ordered, and the Council did not circulate it, this could only be dealt with by going back to court.
24. I consider the Council should have told Miss T what actions it would take in relation to circulating the documents that she wanted circulated. Miss T brought up the question of the doctor’s letter also in the 8 October review conference but was not told whether this would or would not be circulated or the reasons why. I consider the Council acted with fault. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the evidence Miss T wanted conference to see would have changed its view. Miss T is caused distress because she cannot know either.
25. The ICPCC agreed the children should be placed on a child protection plan under the category of Emotional Abuse (showing the key issues facing the children was not thought to be allegations of FII). The Council has already apologised for racially profiling Miss T. I cannot achieve more for her by investigating that point further.
26. It is expected that minutes will not be a verbatim account of what goes on. I am also aware that Miss T received ‘outcome reports’ rather than the full minutes. If Miss T has not received the full minutes of the conferences or core groups (redacted as necessary) then she can go to the Information Commissioner. I am not considering that here. Miss T’s comments about the accuracy of some of the issues raised were written into the full notes so subsequent meetings (and anyone looking at the file) were able to see this. It is not the case, in law or guidance, that notes of meetings need to be signed off by all participants. If Miss T disagreed with the plan, she could have taken appropriate legal advice (and not just on whether her legal representative could attend meetings); we cannot say what should or should not be in a plan or whether a plan is appropriate or not.
27. The Council has apologised for sometimes circulating notes of meetings late and for changing venues of meetings at the last minute. This is fault. Sometimes changes of venue are necessary and cannot be avoided – I do not consider this fault causes Miss T injustice as she was able to be present at every meeting. I note that Miss T received the minutes of the October meeting in December. She says she had wanted the court to have the details of that meeting but she did not get the minutes soon enough. This delay is fault and it caused Miss T distress. The Council should apologise and tell me how it will ensure meeting notes are completed and circulated promptly going forward.

The Council failed to investigate safeguarding allegations appropriately

28. Miss T brings up two specific safeguarding allegations; the first was where she says her ex-partner hit the children with his vehicle. The second was where her ex-partner left her with no hot water or heating.
29. Being hit by a car is a criminal matter. If the police felt it relevant to the child protection process, they would be in a good position to raise it. Also, if the children were seen by a doctor afterwards then the doctor would also be able to provide appropriate evidence. Miss T says the police took no action because it told her the Council did not see the children quickly enough after the events and because it would not be in their best interests to be re-interviewed. This does not change my view that hitting someone with a car is a criminal matter and thus for the police to decide on the right course of action.
30. Over the time of the matters complained of, Miss T was in court with her ex-partner over financial matters. The Council would not involve itself in a civil dispute. Miss T says she self-referred to the relevant Council department, which took enforcement action but she says she was without heating and hot water from 8 December 2019 to 14 February 2020.
31. As the children were under a child protection plan at the time, the Council should have considered whether she needed support (under Section 17 of the Children Act) because of this. The Council may have decided that intervention was inappropriate but it should have considered it. Its failure to do so is fault. Miss T is caused distress because she does not know if the Council might have intervened.
32. Miss T said there were ‘numerous (safeguarding) incidents’ when the children were at home with their father. I have seen evidence of a number of investigations that were carried out (also with the police). I am not finding the Council at fault for failing to investigate appropriately.

The Council failed to investigate Miss T’s complaints appropriately

33. The Council has acknowledged Miss T wanted to raise complaints about several different issues. It offered a meeting, but this did not deal with every complaint. A follow-up meeting proved difficult to arrange. Miss T says she wanted all her complaints, made between June and December 2019, responded to appropriately and the Council says the social worker provided this in writing but Miss T disagrees.
34. The Council should have clarified whether the complaint meeting or responses were formal or not. The complaints team should have been involved in her complaints to the social worker from the outset. The Council’s failure to formally respond to Miss T’s complaints from 2019 is fault. It has caused Miss T time and trouble in trying to get answers to her questions and needing to come to the Ombudsman for resolution to some of the outstanding matters. The Council should tell me what action it will take going forward to ensure all complaints are logged with the complaints team to avoid a lack of clarity for complainants.

Agreed action

35. For the Council to apologise for the fault identified in this statement within a month of my decision.
36. For the Council to make a payment of £300 for the distress caused to Miss T from the Council’s failure to circulate documents or to explain why it would not circulate them, for the delayed circulation of meeting notes and for its failure to consider supporting the family under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 when the family was without hot water or heating. It should also make a payment of £200 for the time and trouble experienced by Miss T because of the Council’s complaints handling. The Council should do this within three months of the date of my decision.
37. For the Council to explain how it will ensure meeting notes are issued in accordance with the timescales it has set going forward. It has told me it has changed its procedures in order to do this. It should send me a copy of these procedures within three months of the date of my decision.
38. For the Council to tell me what action it will take going forward to ensure all complaints are logged with the complaints team. The Council has said it has embarked on an awareness campaign for all staff and has reviewed the relevant documents. It should send me evidence of this within three months of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have reached a finding of fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy that injustice through the measures I set out above.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

40. Miss T asked me to consider the actions of the Council in relation to its Section 7 report submitted to the court, which is outside our jurisdiction.
41. Miss T also had concerns about child protection meetings as a whole, which are not the Council’s sole responsibility.
42. Miss T complained about ‘aggressive action’ following allegations of fabricated and induced illness, which would be expected given the nature of such allegations. She was also unhappy with the refusal of the Council to become involved in the father’s failure to return the children at one point when they were in his care, which is a police matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman