Summary: Mr B complained about the remedy the Council offered following its investigation into his complaint about a child protection investigation. He said the Council delayed completing a risk assessment, which delayed him resuming contact with his son and this caused him distress. Mr B felt the remedy offered by the Council did not reflect the distress he experienced. We decided the remedy offered by the Council was sufficient given the injustice caused to Mr B by its fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the remedy the Council offered following its investigation into his complaint about a child protection investigation. He said the Council delayed completing a risk assessment, which delayed him resuming contact with his son and caused him distress.
2. Mr B also complained the Council did not take account of his diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
3. Mr B felt the remedy offered by the Council did not reflect the distress he experienced.

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. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether individual social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
6. 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)
7. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• the Council’s procedures; and
• our remedies guidance.
10. Mr B and the Council’s comments on a draft decision were considered before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s complaint procedure

11. The Council has a two-stage complaints procedure.
12. Stage 1: The Council will acknowledge all formal customer complaints within 5 working days. A manager will be assigned to investigate the complaint and provide the customer with a response within 20 working days. If the complaint is complex in nature and more time is required to investigate thoroughly, the Council will keep the customer informed until the matter is concluded.
13. Stage 2: If the customer is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, they may ask for the complaint to be reconsidered. To request a stage 2 review the complainant must show:
• the decision made has been based on a factual error;
• there has been an oversight on a significant piece of evidence; or
• new evidence has been provided to support the original complaint, which was not included with the original submission.
14. At stage 2 a more senior officer will investigate the complaint. They will review the stage 1 response and provide a further response within 20 working days. If the complaint is complex and the senior officer requires more time to investigate the matter, the Council will keep the customer informed until the matter is concluded.

Background

15. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. Mr B has a son, C. In February 2019, the court granted C’s mother a non-molestation order against Mr B following domestic abuse. C’s mother stopped contact between C and Mr B. In July 2019, concerns were raised with the Council that Mr B was living with C and C’s mother. This was a breach of the non-molestation order. C became subject to a child protection plan.
17. As part of the Council’s child protection plan, it risk assessed Mr B’s contact with C. Mr B could not have unsupervised contact with C while the Council was completing the assessment. The Council planned to complete the risk assessment by 27 September 2019, it finished the assessment on 5 December 2019. In November 2019, the Council arranged for Mr B to have supervised contact with C twice.
18. The Council’s risk assessment recommended Mr B have weekly contact with C for two to three hours and for this to be supervised for the first three months. The Council said when C started nursery in January 2020, Mr B could have him one afternoon a week.
19. Mr B made two complaints to the Council about how Children’s Services had worked with him during the child protection investigation. These will be referred to as complaint C and complaint D.

Complaint C

20. Mr B made complaint C in October 2019. He complained the Council:
• failed to complete a risk assessment;
• failed to provide him with fortnightly updates about his son;
• did not support him to understand how his ADHD could affect his son;
• failed to refer him to a domestic abuse perpetrator programme; and
• asked him to provide the same information more than once.
21. He also complained a social worker shouted and raised her hand to stop him from talking during a home visit.
22. The Council responded at stage 1 of its complaint procedure in November 2019. It accepted it did not:
• complete the risk assessment within the expected time frame. It advised it had now completed the assessment;
• consistently provide Mr B with fortnightly updates about his son; or
• undertake any domestic abuse work with Mr B.
23. It also recognised Mr B had to share information more than once. The Council expressed regret that its delay in completing the risk assessment had delayed him having contact with his son. The Council told Mr B it had referred him to a domestic abuse perpetrator programme, and it had chased this up.
24. Mr B asked for the Council to consider his complaint at stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure. Mr B felt the stage one investigation was inadequate. He complained the Council had not interviewed the social workers in the case as part of the investigation.
25. The Council and Mr B met in January 2020 to discuss his complaints. The Council agreed to assign a new social worker to the case. The social worker assigned had experience of working with people who have a diagnosis of ADHD.
26. The Council responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure in February 2020. It referred to its stage 1 response and advised there was nothing more it could do to resolve the complaint. The Council signposted Mr B to the Ombudsman.

Complaint D

27. Mr B made a further complaint in December 2019. He raised the following concerns:
• The Council did not speak to the social workers on the case or his mother as part of its investigation into complaint C.
• The Council’s communication was poor.
• The workers on his case did not understand ADHD.
• Information about his driving offences was wrong.
• The social worker on his case delayed accessing information from other agencies.
28. The Council responded to Mr B in January 2020 at stage 1 of its complaint procedure. It accepted:
• a discussion between Mr B and a social worker had become heated. The Council apologised that this had upset him.
• there was a delay in making a domestic abuse perpetrator programme referral for Mr B. The Council apologised and told Mr B it had made the referral.
• there was a delay in accessing information about Mr B from his Doctor.
• difficulties in the relationship between Mr B and the social worker led to him being reluctance to work with the Council.
• the situation had a negative impact on Mr B and his son’s mental health. The Council recognised Mr B’s feelings and apologised.
29. The Council explained it was appropriate for the family’s social worker to explore how the behaviours associated with Mr B’s ADHD might impact on his parenting. The Council said these discussions were not meant to cause upset and it was sorry if this was the case. The Council told Mr B it would look into his claim the information provided by probation about his driving offences was inaccurate. The Council offered to meet with Mr B to discuss his complaint.
30. As recorded above, the Council and Mr B met in January 2020 to discuss his complaints and assigned a new social worker.
31. In February 2020, Mr B asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The Council advised there were no grounds for a stage 2 investigation. It reiterated that it had found evidence that, “the behaviour and actions of staff have caused some distress and the failure to take action earlier has affected your ability to have contact with your son during an important period in the development of the relationship.” The Council accepted Mr B experienced significant distress because of the delay it caused in him being able to have contact with his son. The Council offered Mr B £200 to compensate for the distress caused and £100 for time and trouble. The Council advised this sum was based on guidance from the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. The Council accepted it got some things wrong, apologised and offered Mr B a remedy. The Council assigned a new social worker to the case and offered him £300; £200 for distress and £100 for time and trouble.
33. Mr B complained the Council should have awarded him more money for distress given its delay in completing his risk assessment delayed him resuming contact with his son.
34. We recommend payments, usually between £100 and £300 to reflect the distress or inconvenience caused to people by Council fault. Financial remedies are not compensation; compensation is a matter for the courts. A financial remedy is a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the fault.
35. There was a two-month delay in the Council completing Mr B’s risk assessment. It said it would complete the assessment by the end of September 2019, but this did not happen until the beginning of December 2019. During the period of delay the Council arranged for Mr B to see C twice. Mr B lost the opportunity to see his son more during the period of delay and this caused him distress. The Council offered Mr B £200 to remedy the injustice caused by the delay, this was in line with our guidance on remedies.
36. The Council met its timescales for responding to complaint D but not complaint C. Mr B asked the Council to escalate complaint C to stage 2 in November 2019. The Council’s policy says it will respond within 20 working days or tell the complainant if it is going to take longer. The Council responded in February 2020, a delay of two months. During the two-month delay the Council met Mr B to discuss his complaint and addressed some aspects of complaint C in its January 2020 response to complaint D. The Council offered Mr B £100 to remedy the delay, this was in line with our guidance on remedies.
37. The Council accepted it was at fault and I am satisfied with the action it took to remedy the injustice this caused to Mr B.
38. The Council took account of the impact of ADHD on Mr B’s behaviour during its child protection investigation. It considered his diagnosis in the context of him having contact with his son. It gave him advice about how certain behaviours may be experienced by others and encourage him to try to manage behaviours that could negatively impact others. The Council used its professional judgement to assess the impact of ADHD on Mr B’s parenting and to provide advice. I have found no fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s ADHD diagnosis within the child protection investigation. The Council’s delay completing the assessment is addressed in paragraph 35.
39. Mr B can raise his concerns about the practice of individual social workers with Social Work England.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B's complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. I am satisfied the Council has taken action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman