Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council dealt with a child protection referral concerning his family. We have found no fault by the Council in this substantive matter. However, there was fault in the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint, for which a remedy has been agreed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained the Council was at fault in its response to a child protection referral, causing avoidable distress to him and his family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the actions of the Council relating to a child protection referral it received in January 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 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)
6. 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

7. I considered all the information provided by Mr B. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response.
8. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments received in response before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

9. The Children Act 1989 says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the needs and wishes of the child should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates. Safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility.
10. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (the term used in the Act). The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required (S.47 Children Act 1989). Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
11. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 made provisions for councils to make their own local arrangements for safeguarding children.

What happened in this case

12. On 25 January 2019, the Council received a referral from the school attended by Mr B’s daughter, child Y, who had disclosed on a school residential week that her father punished her by making her kneel on the floor with her hands in the air and punching and slapping her on the head ‘until he gets tired of it’. She said it had last happened just before Christmas. She had no visible marks or bruises.
13. In accordance with the relevant procedures for safeguarding children, the Council held a strategy meeting and a joint investigation with the police began, under S47 of the Children Act 1989. It did so immediately, and began with joint visits with the police to the child and her siblings in their education settings. Child Y said that when she was naughty at home she was sent to the ‘naughty corner’ where she would kneel and raise her hands for a short time, but she indicated that what she had told classmates had been provoked by their teasing of her, and she would not say she was hit but that her parents would tap her when telling her to kneel. The Council and police officers then also spoke to Mr B about the allegation, which was denied.
14. It was agreed that the children could go home with their parents, with a written agreement signed to the effect that the parents would look for alternative ways to discipline the children, would not use the naughty corner and would cooperate with the professionals while the investigation was ongoing. Officers then also visited the family home and spoke to Mr B’s wife who confirmed non-physical chastisement was used.
15. Child Y attended a child protection medical on 30 January 2019. She made no disclosures and no evidence of injury of physical chastisement was found.
16. The Council’s record of the S47 enquiries noted some concerns about the health of two of the siblings and a referral to a health visitor and a medical were to be arranged to address these concerns. The Council decided a Child and Family assessment was appropriate.
17. In March 2019, the school contacted the Council again, reporting that Child Y had said she wanted to die. The Council advised the school to contact the child’s parents to collect her and clearly explain that they must take her to hospital if she tried to harm herself over the weekend. The following week a social worker visited the child at home. The child explained what happened, referring to bullying, but assured the social worker she would never harm herself.
18. On 10 April 2019 there was a further home visit, and all children were seen, as well as their parents. The social worker’s recommendation was for a Child in Need plan under S17 of the Children Act 1989. Following on from this there was a further home visit, by a newly assigned social worker and the team manager. Notes from the visit show that direct work was undertaken with the children, their parents were spoken to at length, and observations were made of the home environment and the children’s presentation. The Council noted the parents clearly stated they did not want a Child in Need plan. A decision was made, taking account of all the information gathered, that at this stage escalation to a child protection conference was not warranted and the case would be closed. Both parents were informed of the case closure: a letter confirming this was sent on 31 May 2019.

Mr B’s concerns about the above actions, and my analysis

19. Mr B was concerned that the Council acted as it did in response to what was a ‘false alarm’. He was concerned that Council officers and the police went to the children’s schools and spoke to them without his consent, and that the children were caused worry and distress as a result. However, in the circumstances of this child protection concern the Council was entitled to speak to the children without Mr B’s consent: it had a responsibility to investigate and I have found no fault with how it did so. The Council also has acknowledged that such visits to children may be daunting, and says that while officers carrying out this work are skilled at trying to reassure children during this process, it is sorry if Mr B’s child felt distressed.
20. Mr B said that the Council made him sign the agreement referred to in paragraph 14 above, and that he had refused to do so until it was amended. I do not consider that Mr B was caused any significant injustice by the Council seeking an agreement from to make it clear what behaviour was expected going forwards, prior to allowing the children to go home while enquiries were ongoing.

Subsidiary matters raised by Mr B

21. Mr B raised several other points about the actions of social workers and others during the time of the child protection investigation.
22. Some of these points concerned comments he says were made by social workers, or allegations about their behaviour being unprofessional, rude, or racist, or that they were planning against the family. In the absence of any appropriate evidence, I cannot reach a view on these parts of the complaint.
23. One point of the complaint referred to information recorded on the Council’s file. Mr B was unhappy about information set out about other family members living abroad, which he says was not discussed with him. I have not established how the information came to be on the file or whether it is accurate: however, I do not need to do so because I do not consider this causes Mr B a significant injustice. If the detail is incorrect, Mr B could ask the Council to append a correction to its records. Mr B also noted there was an error in the records in that it had been recorded that he had paid £1,000 for security for his family on a trip to Nigeria, when in fact the sum had been £10,000. The Council has acknowledged this was an error, and offered apologies.
24. Finally, Mr B raised several points concerning requests for information or action which he said were not appropriately responded to by the Council. This included requests for a copy of the referral and of notes of discussions with the children, and queries relating to the family’s housing and to nursery provision for one of the children. The evidence suggests the Council provided Mr B with the relevant email address so that he could make a formal Subject Access Request for records held by the Council, and that in May 2019 there was some liaison between the Council and the housing department which Mr B was informed about, and that he was asked if he still wished to have support with a referral to the nursery. The evidence I have seen does not suggest that there was a failure by the Council in any of these matters leading to significant injustice to Mr B or his family.

Complaint handling

25. There was fault by the Council in the handling of Mr B’s complaint. He initially sent his complaint to an advocacy service in error, and this came to light in September 2019 when he contacted the Council chasing a response. He was appropriately advised and sent information about his complaint to the Council on 27 October 2019. That was overlooked, which was fault.
26. In July 2020 when Mr B exchanged further emails with the Council, it considered his complain was out of time. That was in part correct, in that some matters referred to took place in 2011. But other matters related to events from January 2019: those should not have been treated as out of time.

Injustice to Mr B

27. As a result of the faults in the handling of Mr B’s complaint he was put to some time and trouble seeking to have the matter properly dealt with.

Agreed action

28. I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint, the Council:

• Issues Mr B with a formal written apology for the identified failings in this case;
• Pays him £150 in recognition of time and trouble caused by faults in the handling of his complaint.

29. I further recommended that within three months of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council reviews lessons learned from the complaint handling in this case and takes steps to ensure that so far as possible they are not repeated.
30. The Council should provide evidence of these actions to the Ombudsman.
31. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

33. For the reason set out in paragraph 3, I did not investigate matters relating to the Council’s actions in respect of child protection or other matters prior to January 2019. Mr B might reasonably have complained to the Ombudsman sooner about any earlier matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman