Summary: Mr B complained the Council completed an assessment during a child protection investigation without allowing him the opportunity to have input. He also complained the Council failed to give him enough time to read the assessment report, especially as he has dyslexia. We find the Council failed to give Mr B enough time to read the assessment report. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council completed an assessment during a child protection investigation without allowing him the opportunity to have input. He also complained the Council failed to give him enough time to read the assessment report, especially as he has dyslexia. He says he was unfairly deemed to be guilty by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
6. Mr B 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

7. The Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area.
8. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 says local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.
9. These duties are set out in the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. When a local authority receives a referral about a child who may be at risk of significant harm it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. This will include determining whether:

• The child needs immediate protection and urgent action is required.
• The child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
• There is reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. If there is, enquiries must be made, and the child should be assessed under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
• Any services are required by the child and the family.
• Further specialist assessments are required.
• No further action is required.

Back to top

What happened

10. The Council received a safeguarding referral in November 2019 which alleged Mr B had hurt his stepdaughter (C). The following day, the Council held a meeting. The result of the meeting was that the Council would conduct joint section 47 enquiries with the police.
11. The social worker visited Mr B at his home a couple of days later. She sought his views on the allegations and he provided his account of the incident.
12. The result of the social worker’s section 47 enquiries was that C should be further assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.The social worker’s reason was that C had remained consistent with her account of the incident. However, as enough safety planning was in place, there was no evidence of a continuous risk of harm.
13. The social worker called Mr B on 11 November 2019 and told him the police’s investigation was not continuing due to a lack of evidence. She also told him that she would continue to assess C.
14. The social worker updated Mr B on 21 November 2019. She told him the outcome of the section 47 enquiry was that C’s allegation was substantiated because her version of events had been consistent. Mr B disputed he had caused C’s injury. Mr B also said he did not feel he had enough of an opportunity to explain his version of events. The social worker told Mr B she had heard his account.
15. In December 2019, the social worker called Mr B to provide him with the result of the section 17 assessment which was that Child in Need planning was required. Child in Need planning follows when an assessment has identified that further support is required to meet the child’s needs. The social worker asked for Mr B’s engagement with the planning and Mr B said he was happy to engage.
16. The social worker called Mr B on 16 December 2019 to confirm the date and time of the Child in Need meeting. Mr B provided the social worker with an address to send the report from the section 17 assessment.
17. The Child in Need in meeting took place on 18 December 2019. The social worker gave Mr B a copy of the assessment report before the meeting because he had not received a copy in the post. Mr B says he only had 10 minutes before the meeting to read a lengthy report.
18. The Council sent the assessment report to Mr B by first class recorded post on 19 December 2019. Attempts to deliver it to his house were unsuccessful and he eventually collected it on 24 December 2019.
19. Mr B attended a Child in Need review meeting in January 2020. He also complained to the Council around the same time. He said that he felt he did not have enough time to review the assessment report before the Child in Need meeting. He also said he did not have an opportunity to meet the social worker to go over his version of events.
20. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint in February 2020. It said the social worker did meet with Mr B and his parents, but she could not discuss in detail the allegations made because of the investigation by the police. It also said as the assessment report had not arrived at his home, the social worker bought a copy to the meeting with her. It accepted Mr B had a short time to read through it before the meeting began.
21. Mr B attended the final Child in Need review meeting in March 2020. The social worker confirmed the agreed outcomes had been met and so further intervention was not necessary.
22. Mr B remained unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint and so referred it to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The evidence shows that Mr B had an opportunity to discuss the allegations when the social worker went to his house in November 2019. I have read the notes of the visit and it is clear Mr B gave a detailed account of what happened from his perspective. The evidence also shows the social worker was in regular contact with Mr B before the first Child in Need meeting. I therefore do not accept Mr B’s assertion he did not have a chance to put forward his version of events.
24. Mr B also complains the Council failed to give him enough time to read the assessment report, especially as he has dyslexia. I have read all the communication between Mr B and the Council and I cannot find any evidence he told the social worker he has dyslexia. I therefore cannot find the Council was at fault for not making reasonable adjustments because of his dyslexia.
25. However, I do find the Council was at fault for not sending the assessment report to Mr B in time for the first Child in Need meeting. The evidence shows the social worker completed her assessment on 9 December 2019. She phoned Mr B on the same day to tell him Child in Need planning was required. There is no evidence she asked him on the call for an address to send the assessment report.
26. The social worker phoned Mr B again on 16 December 2019. She confirmed the date of the Child in Need meeting was 18 December 2019 and asked him for an address to send the assessment report. He gave this information to her during the call. On balance, I find this was the first time the social worker had asked Mr B for his address.
27. The Council did not post the assessment report in time for the Child in Need meeting on 18 December 2019. Therefore, the social worker gave Mr B a copy to read on the day of the meeting. The assessment report is a 10-page document.
28. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has provided me with evidence to confirm it sent the assessment report by first class post on 19 December 2019. Mr B collected it on 24 December 2019 after attempts to deliver it to his house were unsuccessful.
29. The social worker should have asked Mr B for an address where to send the assessment report in the phone call on 9 December 2019. Instead, the social worker asked for this information on 16 December 2019, and then still did not send the assessment report until after the Child in Need meeting. This fault has caused Mr B an injustice. He had a short time to read a lengthy and detailed document. I can understand his frustration at feeling ill-prepared for the Child in Need meeting because of this. A remedy is recommended for this injustice.

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 1 February 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr B for the frustration caused by not sending him a copy of the assessment report in time for the Child in Need meeting.
• Remind its social workers to:

1. Ask for contact information at the earliest possible opportunity where it seems likely reports or other documents will have to be shared.
2. Ensure they send relevant reports to all participants well in advance of any meetings.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have found fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman