Summary: the complainant complained the Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral resulting in him spending time away from his family damaging family relationships. The Council accepts it acted with fault and offered an apology and payment of £250. We found the Council acted with fault and recommended an increased remedy of £750.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom we shall refer to as Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral. The issue concerned Mr X and his partner Ms Y’s children, Q and Z. Mr X says the Council did not investigate the referral in line with government guidance. Mr X says the Council also failed to fully investigate his concerns about the action the Council took.
2. Mr X says this has damaged his relationship with Ms Y and he missed contact with the children causing him and the family distress. The Council’s actions Mr X says also resulted in a loss of income because he had to take time off work.
3. The Council accepted fault and offered a payment of £250 in recognition of the impact on Mr X. Mr X says this does not recognise the impact on his life or his family’s life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If 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)
6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the result of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. The Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate a complaint considered under this procedure unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Mr X, and read the information presented with his complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its responses;
• Researched the law, guidance, and policy;
• Shared with Mr X and the Council a draft decision and considered any comments received on that draft decision.
8. 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

What I found

The law, guidance, and policy

9. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where they consider a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to decide whether the Council should take protective action. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect. (S.47 Children Act 1989)
10. When a council accepts a referral, the social worker has the lead professional role. The social worker should clarify with the referrer, where possible, what the concerns are and how and why they have arisen.
11. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.  The assessment may result in:

• No further action
• A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs
• A decision to convene a strategy meeting.

12. The child and family must be informed of the action the council intends to take.
13. The social worker should see the child as soon as possible if the decision is the referral needs further assessment.
14. The council has a maximum timeframe of 45 days to complete the assessment. Assessors should consider the child’s developmental needs, parenting capacity and family and environmental factors. The child’s interests come first. Where a particular need is identified during the assessment, the council should not wait for the assessment to be completed before commissioning services.
15. An assessor may decide that no further action is necessary, that the child is in need or the child needs protection. Where the result is continued involvement, the council agrees a plan of action with other agencies and discusses this with the child and family.
16. The plan needs regular reviews to see whether the plan is meeting the expected result and minimised risk to the child.
17. The first meeting called is a strategy meeting to decide what immediate safeguarding action to take. The lead agency is the Council.
18. If the information gathered under section 47 substantiates concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange a child protection conference within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.
19. Guidance set out in “Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018” tells councils how they should deal with child protection concerns.
20. Professionals involved in child protection investigations must have training in best practice as set out in “Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witness including Children (2001).” A decision whether to conduct an ABE interview is normally taken by a strategy meeting.
21. The Council’s Safeguarding Procedure says the Council should share reports with parents two days before a case conference. This allows the parents time to consider and reflect on what the reports say.

What happened

22. Mr X lived with his family comprising his partner Ms Y and their children Q and Z. In March 2019 Q made a disclosure at school that triggered a safeguarding referral by the school to the Council. It called a strategy meeting the same day to consider the referral and that meeting decided to start a safeguarding investigation under Section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989. The meeting decided both Mr X and Ms Y should leave the family home, so they went to stay with Mr X’s parents. However, the following day the Council allowed Ms Y to return to the family home without, Mr X says, ever fully explaining why.
23. The Council says it allowed Ms Y to return to the family home because another family member provided extra protection for the family. The social workers believed therefore Ms Y could return home and provide stability and re-assurance for the young children. For Mr X he says this increased his sense of separation.
24. The Council called an initial child protection conference on 10 April 2019 which decided to place the children on Child Protection Plans.
25. The Police took the lead role in arranging to interview Q under the ABE procedure. They decided to wait for assessments before conducting the interview. This resulted in a delay of eight weeks before the interview took place. The Council which has lead role overall for safeguarding investigations accepted this took too long.
26. Mr X had one supervised contact session with Q in March 2019, but the child protection conference recommended he should not have further contact until the Council completed the Section 47 investigation. The Council accepted this advice and did not arrange further contact.
27. Information for consideration at the child protection conference should be sent to those attending at least three days in advance. Mr X received the information ten minutes before the meeting. The conference chair offered an adjournment to consider the information.
28. At the review child protection conference in June 2019 the health professionals recommended transferring the children to Child in Need plans and offering support to the family. Council officers from Children’s Social Care and Education departments disagreed saying they should remain on the Child Protection Plans. The review child protection conference advised the Council the children should remain on Child Protection Plans.
29. In September 2019, the Council decided the children no longer needed protection and removed them from the child protection plans. However, Mr X says following this, social workers did not visit the children for any follow up work between June 2019 and January 2020.
30. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the safeguarding referral. The Council considered this under the statutory complaints’ procedure. In that complaint Mr X complained the Council:
• failed to explain the allegations made against him;
• failed to question Q’s school on the conflicting statements it produced;
• allowed Q’s mother to care for her 24 hours after the allegation was made;
• failed to consider the opinions and professional judgements of health visitors and the child psychologist throughout the period;
• did not visit the children from early June 2019 onwards;
• failed to provide an explanation about why the Council allowed Mr X contact with his children but then later forbade it; and
• wrongly referred to Q as exhibiting sexualised behaviour and that she was shown inappropriate videos by another family member.
31. The Council appointed an Independent Investigator and Independent Person who produced reports upholding some of the complaints. Mr X objected to the findings saying the investigation had flaws and referred it to Stage 3, the Review Panel.
32. The Review Panel considered the reports and Mr X’s concerns and issued an adjudication which upheld the following complaints finding the Council:
• only gave Mr X reports 10 minutes before the start of the initial and review child protection conferences;
• delayed sending out minutes of the Child Protection Review conference;
• delayed holding the ABE interview for 8 weeks;
• did not explain why the Council allowed contact with the children and then later forbade it;
• wrongly referred to Q as displaying sexualised behaviour.
33. The Review Panel partially upheld Mr X’s complaint that Council records contained errors such as referring to Z as a university student when he was then aged 8 years.
34. The Panel recommended the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X accepting its poor communication with Mr X contributed to the distress he experienced;
• Offer Mr X an update on its implementation of the recommendations in the Stage 2 report;
• Issue staff guidance on sharing information on the progress of assessments and investigations with the alleged perpetrators
• Issue staff guidance to improve contemporaneous record keeping avoiding gaps in case notes
• Pay Mr X £250 for his time and trouble.
35. Mr X says the Panel’s decision showed the Council at fault. However, Mr X says it did not offer a remedy reflecting the impact on Mr X and his family. Mr X says the investigation caused a rift in the family and damaged his relationship with his children. Due to the impact of the investigation and poor handling Mr X says he lost up to 30 days work significantly affecting the family income.
36. In commenting on my draft decision Mr X says the Council failed to challenge information presented by the school which he says contained conflicting information. Mr X says the Council never explained why it did not tackle the School on the conflicts in those reports and still has not given an explanation.
37. In our ‘Guidance on Remedies’ we recommend a payment of between £100 to £300 for avoidable time and inconvenience experienced by a complainant. The Council proposed a payment at the higher end of this scale. Our Guidance also recommends a payment in the same scale of £100 to £300 for avoidable distress.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

38. My role is to decide if the Council properly considered the complaint and offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused. It is not to re-investigate the complaint but to identify any shortcomings in the investigation and the remedy offered. If I find the fault caused injustice, I must consider what the Council should do to rectify that injustice.
39. I have considered the detailed Stage 2 investigation report, the accompanying Independent Peron’s report, Stage 2 Adjudication letter; the Review Panel’s findings and final Adjudication letter. I have also considered the Council’s responses to my enquiries. I find the Council properly conducted the complaints procedure and carried out a detailed investigation without fault.
40. Some of Mr X’s complaints have been upheld. However, both the Stage 2 Investigator and the Panel found they could not reach a decision on one complaint. Therefore, I have considered that complaint and the injustice arising from the complaints the Panel upheld.
41. I accept the finding already made to uphold the complaints by the Panel. On the outstanding complaint with no finding, I have made a finding. The Panel found it could not decide the complaint that the Council had failed to reveal to Mr X the details of a second allegation. Mr X believes this allegation may have influenced the decisions made by social workers particularly when considering if the children should remain on the child protection plans, rather than transferring to child in need plans. The Stage 2 investigation and Panel say they could not decide the complaint because of the lack of records kept. The Panel says the Council could have sought information from other agencies involved to resolve the question but did not. The social workers say they did not receive or investigate any second or further allegations, and therefore no record of one is on their files.
42. Satisfied that no other allegations had been made the Council in its view had nothing to reveal to Mr X. Once he raised the issue, given the duty to safeguard the children the Council should have checked with all other agencies that nobody had received any other allegations. The Council did not do that, and therefore I find the Council at fault.
43. This led to the Panel being unable to decide the complaint. With time it is clear no other allegations had been made. However, the lack of a decision left Mr X never knowing whether an undisclosed allegation had influenced decisions made about him and his children. That injustice should be addressed.
44. In addition, the lack of follow up visits to the children caused Mr X concern over their wellbeing and recovery from the family break up during the investigation. That injustice needs to be addressed too.
45. Mr X says the Council never explained the contradictions in the school’s report of the incidences that led to the safeguarding investigation. School staff wrote those reports. As part of its investigation Council gathered information from other sources before reaching a decision. It is not for the Council to explain the contradictions but to satisfy itself the reports did not indicate a risk to the children.
46. The Council has a legal duty to investigate allegations that a child is suffering or is at risk of significant harm. The primary responsibility is to safeguard the welfare of that child. Carrying out an investigation inevitably causes distress to those involved. In recommending a remedy we will consider avoidable distress caused. We may also ask councils to note what a complainant says about errors in reports, so the file makes clear the complainant disputes the information. Where a family has been separated for longer than necessary, we may consider recommending the Council arranges counselling to help the family rebuild.
47. As set out in our ‘Guidance on Remedies’ our aim is to put a complainant in a position they would have been but for the fault. When this is not possible, as in this case, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge avoidable distress or hurt.
48. We welcome the Panel’s recommendations for improved staff guidance on record keeping and I recommend the effectiveness of the staff guidance should be reviewed by an audit of a sample of files to ensure it has met its objective.
49. The Council has recognised in its offer of £250 faults led to Mr X avoidably expending time resolving the complaints and inconvenience. I have considered if we should recommend an extra payment. The offer by the Council does not recognise the full impact of the failings upheld by the Panel or the failure to reach a view on an important aspect of the complaint. To recognise that I have recommended an increased payment.

Recommended and agreed action

50. To address the injustice arising from the faults identified I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Mr X the £250 recommended by the Panel plus £500 in recognition of the distress caused and the time spent away from his family;
• Commit to within three months setting up an audit of sample files to check new staff guidance is meeting its objective;
• Offer to arrange a programme of counselling for the family to repair relationships if the family wish to engage with it.

Back to top

Final decision

51. In completing the investigation, I find the Council at fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman