Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to safeguard and protect his two children between November 2018 and May 2020. The Council upheld all of Mr X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and made recommendations. The Council then acted with further fault when it again failed to correctly consider whether to initiate care proceedings. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £750 to recognise the significant distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused him. It also agreed to provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has carried out the service improvement recommendations made during the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to protect and safeguard his two children from harm between November 2018 and May 2020 when they lived with his ex-partner. Mr X complains:
• The Council failed to initiate care proceedings in November 2018 and May 2019 despite evidence showing the threshold for significant harm was met.
• The Council failed to adequately manage and administer the Public Law Outline (PLO) process between November 2018 and May 2019 and January and May 2020.
• The social worker involved in the case was biased towards the children’s mother.
• The Council has failed to carry out recommendations following the conclusion of the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failings meant his two children remained in the care of their mother which left them vulnerable and exposed to harm. Mr X said the matter has caused him significant stress, uncertainty and time and trouble.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about how the Council administered the PLO process and the outcome of the complaints process. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about social worker’s conduct for the reasons explained in paragraph 55.

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. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint and considered information he provided.
9. I considered the documentation and conclusion of the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
10. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Protecting children from harm

12. The Council has a duty to investigate if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This duty comes under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
13. If the council finds the child is at risk of significant harm, it will draw up a child protection plan. This sets out ways to help keep the child safe, how to make improvements within the family and what support they will need. The council holds Core Group Meetings every six weeks for children on a child protection plan to review its progress.

Public Law Outline

14. The Public Law Outline (PLO) sets out the duties councils have when, for example, it is thinking about taking a case to court to ask for a care order to take a child into care. This is often described as initiating public law care proceedings.
15. The PLO sets out that councils must ensure they identify concerns they have about a child early and where possible provide support for the family to address these concerns. This is pre-proceedings work. Usually when the PLO is initiated the child is already subject to a child protection plan but insufficient progress has been made.
16. The PLO states councils must send a letter to parents before proceedings to outline the main concerns and invite them to a meeting. The letter before proceedings triggers free legal advice for parents.
17. The pre-proceedings meeting then should take place within 7 working days of the letter. The purpose of the letter is to identify whether it is possible to reach any agreement so court proceedings can be avoided.
18. The PLO states councils must hold a pre-proceedings review within 6-8 weeks of the meeting to clarify the way forward. The possible outcome of the review includes ending the PLO as progress has been made, continuing with pre-proceedings work or to pursue care proceedings. The PLO should not go on longer than 16 weeks.

Statutory Complaints Process

19. There is a formal procedure, set out in law, which the Council must follow to investigate certain types of complaint. It involves three stages:
• local resolution by the Council (Stage 1);
• an investigation by an independent investigator who will prepare a detailed report and findings (Stage 2). The Council then issues an adjudication letter which sets out its response to the findings; and, if the person making the complaint asks;
• an independent panel to consider their outstanding issues (Stage 3).
20. When the Council has investigated a complaint under the statutory complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel, and any remedy the Council offers.

What happened

21. Mr X is the father of two children who live with their mother Ms B. Mr X and Ms B are separated.
22. In mid-2018 the two children came to the Council’s attention following a domestic assault on Ms B from her then partner Mr R, which both children witnessed.
23. In September 2018 the Council progressed the matter to an Initial Child Protection Conference after Ms B continued her relationship with Mr R. The two children were made subject of Child Protection Plans (CPPs). The CPPs were to ensure Ms B did not expose the children to domestic violence situations or to expose them to contact with Mr R.
24. In October 2018 the Council found Ms B had allowed contact between the children and Mr R. Records also show Mr R may have assaulted one of the children. The Council decided to start PLO pre-proceedings. The children remained subject to CPPs and lived with Ms B and their maternal grandparents.
25. Between October 2018 and January 2019 records show Ms B breached the CPPs on multiple occasions. The minutes from the PLO meeting in November 2018 stated the Council would initiate court proceedings with immediate effect should Ms B breach the CPP agreement again.
26. The Council carried out a review of the PLO process in January 2019. However, it only held a meeting with Ms B and did not invite Mr X. Mr X attended core group meetings where he continued to highlight his concerns about Ms B’s ability to care for the children. However, the process lapsed with the Council making no formal decision on whether to end PLO it or initiate care proceedings.
27. In May 2019 the Council decided again to progress the matter to PLO after Mr X raised further concerns about Ms B. Records show Mr X reported a specific occasion that Ms B had met with Mr R and had continued to involve the children with him. However, records show the Council delayed meeting with Mr X about these concerns which in turn meant the information was not presented to the Council’s legal panel on time. The panel decided based on the information it had that the threshold was not met to progress the case to pre-proceedings.
28. During May 2019 Mr R was sentenced to prison. The children continued to live with Ms B and remained the subject of CPPs.
29. Mr X complained to the Council and in August 2019 it began a stage 2 investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mr X complained that:
• The Council failed to initiate care proceedings leaving his two children vulnerable to harm in the care of Ms B.
• The social worker delayed visiting him in May 2019 when he reported a specific incident about Ms B breaching the CPP agreement. Mr X said the delay contributed to the legal panel’s decision not to progress to pre-proceedings.
• Communication from the social care team had been of a poor standard.
• The social worker was biased and believed Ms B’s version of events over his.
• His views as a father were not adequately incorporated in the child protection planning.
30. The Council completed the stage 2 investigation in November 2019 and did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints. The Council’s adjudication officer wrote to Mr X and agreed with the findings of the stage 2 investigation. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 3 for consideration by an independent panel.
31. The stage 3 panel considered Mr X’s complaints in December 2019 and upheld all of his complaints. The panel found the Council had no formal decision records for decisions it took during the PLO process between November 2018 and May 2019. The panel said the stage 2 investigation did not scrutinise or review relevant information to establish why the Council did not initiate care proceedings. The panel found the Council did not adequately manage the PLO process and was concerned about the records showing Ms B had continuously breached CPP agreements without consequence. The panel asked for a re-investigation of Mr X’s complaints about the PLO process.
32. The panel found Mr X lost out on legal representation during the PLO process in January 2019 because the Council did not arrange a separate meeting with him. The panel also found the social worker prioritised visiting Ms B over Mr X during May 2019 which it said contributed to the panel’s decision not to initiate pre-proceedings.
33. The panel also found the social worker continuously gave Ms B multiple chances to comply with the CPP agreement following breaches. They found the social worker failed to impartially assess Mr X’s parenting capacity. The panel concluded the Council was not impartial which could be perceived as being biased towards Ms B. The panel upheld that the Council did not incorporate Mr X into child protection planning.
34. The panel recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and pay him £500 to recognise the time and trouble in bringing his complaint. The panel also recommended service improvements around the PLO process and to promote the rights of both parents during similar processes. The Council wrote to Mr X and accepted the findings of the stage 3 panel.
35. At the end of December 2019, the Council started a further PLO process. The records show this was so the Council could clearly outline its expectations of Ms B and Mr X ahead of Mr R’s release from prison, to ensure the safety of the two children. The Council wrote to Mr X outlining its concerns.
36. Mr X was unhappy with the content of the PLO letter and complained to the Council that it contained inaccurate information. The Council apologised and said it would re-write the letter.
37. In March 2020 the Council wrote to Mr X following its re-investigation into Mr X’s complaint that it had failed to initiate care proceedings. The Council found between November 2018 and January 2019 there was a missed opportunity to initiate care proceedings. It found the children continued to suffer significant harm and attempts to reduce that harm had not worked. The re-investigation found the Council had not administered the PLO process correctly and did not follow good practice. It found a lack of records and those records that did exist were recorded retrospectively.
38. In May 2020 the Council decided to end the PLO process. The Council said it deemed the children safe and Ms B now had a 10-year restraining order against Mr R. Ms B had accepted the offer of a tenancy in a different Council area and there was no indication she had rekindled her relationship with Mr R following his release from prison. The Council decided the threshold to issue care proceedings and apply for removal of the children was not met. The Council transferred the case to the Council area where Ms B now lives.
39. Mr X complained again to the Council again in May 2020 about how it had administered the PLO process between January and May 2020. He said despite the findings of the stage 3 panel it had failed again to do it properly. Mr X said he had still not received the revised PLO letter which the Council promised to send him in January 2020. Mr X said the Council had continued to fail to safeguard his two children from Ms B by ending the PLO process.
40. Following Mr X’s new complaint, the Council carried out a review of its actions between January and May 2020. It found the decision to start PLO in January 2020 was appropriate, as was the decision to end it in May 2020. However, the Council accepted again that it did not administer the process well. It delayed holding an initial pre-proceedings meeting and the letter to Mr X contained old or inaccurate information. The Council also found it did not carry out a PLO review and did not adequately consult with any party. It found the decision to transfer the case to the new council area where Ms B moved to was appropriate because it enabled professionals in that area to support the children. It said Ms B was entitled to decide where to live with the children and the Council supported her move and there was nothing to suggest it was not in children’s best interests. The Council reinforced that the relevant head of service should have oversight of the PLO process to ensure timescales were met and reviews carried out on time.
41. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

42. The heart of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s handling of the PLO process on different occasions between November 2018 and May 2020 when his two children were made the subject of CPPs. Mr X believes the Council’s poor handling of the PLO process meant it failed to initiate care proceedings on three separate occasions and therefore left his children vulnerable to harm by continuing to live with Ms B.
43. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The stage 3 panel upheld all of Mr X’s complaints. Therefore, I have not re-investigated them because it is unlikely I could add anything more.
44. The stage 3 panel recommended the Council pay Mr X £500 which is appropriate to remedy the time and trouble caused to him by needing to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the complaints process. The Council has carried this recommendation out.
45. Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out the service improvements recommended by the stage 3 panel. I have not seen evidence that show the Council has carried these out so I have made recommendations below.

Failure to adequately administer the PLO process between January and May 2020

46. Despite the complaints process identifying issues with how the Council administered the previous PLO process it again failed to adequately do so in January 2020. The Council delayed holding an initial meeting and did not hold a review of the process. Records show the Council also failed to provide Mr X with a re-written PLO letter after agreeing to do so. The Council acknowledged the consultation was badly managed and did not again formally end the process. This was fault. This caused Mr X more uncertainty and frustration.
47. The Council decided that, based on Ms B’s behaviour and circumstances, the children were safe. Therefore, although there was fault in how the Council administered the process, I cannot say there is fault in its decision not to initiate care proceedings at this time. Given Ms B had moved home the decision to transfer the case to the new council area was also appropriate.

Injustice to Mr X

48. The Council has provided Mr X with two payments of £500 to remedy the time and trouble he has spent complaining to the Council and for needing to escalate his complaint to stage 3. However, the Council has not remedied or acknowledged the injustice caused to him by the identified faults around the PLO process.
49. It is clear from the evidence and records that Mr X’s two children remained at risk of significant harm between November 2018 and May 2019. The Council missed opportunities to initiate care proceedings. I cannot say with any certainty what would have happened if the Council had initiated care proceedings and it is important to note that there is no evidence showing the children suffered any harm. However, it caused Mr X significant frustration and distress the time and uncertainty of over what might have happened.
50. The Council demonstrated poor administration of the PLO process on three occasions. The Council consistently failed to adequately communicate with Mr X, failed to keep proper records and failed to adequately consider his concerns. These faults caused Mr X further frustration and uncertainty about what might have happened had the Council acted without fault.
51. I cannot say whether the outcome of the PLO processes would have led to a different outcome but for the faults. However, I have recommended a further remedy for Mr X below to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Agreed actions

52. Within one month of the date of the final decision the Council agreed to pay Mr X £750 to acknowledge the significant distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s failure to adequately administer the Public Law Outline process between November 2018 and May 2020.
53. Within 3 months of the date of the final decision the Council agreed to provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has carried out the following service improvements which it agreed to do following Mr X’s complaints:
• Provide training to staff around the understanding of Public Law Outline.
• Evidence of changes to practice it has made to ensure it administers the Public Law Outline process correctly.
• Complete a themed audit to ensure fathers are consistently and full involved in all assessments, plans and social work process relating to their children.
• Review of procedures around consulting with a parent who for whatever reason could not attend a conference to ensure their views are represented.
• Create a guidance document for parents which fully explains the PLO process.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have ended my investigation because the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault found.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

55. Mr X has complained about the actions of social workers throughout the period complained about. Mr X has already complained to the Health and Care Professions Council which considers complaints about social workers. Therefore, we will not investigate the same issue it is covering.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman