Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address concerns he raised regarding his ex-partner’s behaviour towards their children. He also complained the Council did not uphold all his complaint points at Stage 3 panel. He said the Council’s actions led to his children being removed from his care. The Council was at fault when it failed to carry out the Stage 2 investigation in line with statutory requirements. This fault has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council ignored concerns he brought to its attention regarding his ex-partner’s parenting. He said this led to contact with his children being limited.
2. Mr X complained the Council delayed addressing complaints he made about social workers appointed to work with his family.
3. Mr X also complained the Council did not uphold all aspects of his complaint at the Stage 3 panel.
4. He said this matter caused him stress and led to his children being placed in care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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 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

9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided, this included the complaint correspondence shared between it and Mr X, the Stage 2 investigation report and the Stage 3 panel conclusions.
10. I wrote to the Council and Mr X with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Children Act Complaint Procedure

11. The Children Act 1989 established a formal procedure, set out in law, which the Council must follow to investigate complaints made by looked-after children and children in need. This procedure applies to complaints made by parents of these children, who can complain about the councils’ actions in relation to them.
12. The procedure involves three stages:

• Stage one - local resolution by the Council. This stage takes between ten and twenty working days.
• Stage two - an investigation by an independent investigator who will prepare a detailed report and findings to which the council must respond. The independent investigator does not line manage anyone involved in the complaint. If a complainant is still dissatisfied after stage two, they have the right to ask for their complaint to be considered at stage three. A stage two investigation for a complex case should take no more than 65 working days.
• Stage three - consideration by an independent review panel which may make further recommendations. A review panel should begin within 30 working days of the request.

Care Order

13. Section 31 of the Act allows a court to apply for a care order. A care order gives councils shared parental responsibility for a child or children so they can make decisions about the children’s care.

Child Protection Plan

14. A Child Protection Plan is a plan drawn up by the Council. It sets out how the child or children can be kept safe and what support they will need.

The Council’s Policy on Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour

15. This policy has been developed to deal with unreasonable or persistent behaviour by customers who have raised a complaint that is being dealt with through the Council’s Complaints Procedure.
16. The following examples are the main kinds of behaviours that may cause a customer to be designated persistent:
• customer refuses to accept that the issues raised are not within the scope of the Complaints Process despite having been provided with information about its scope;
• customer makes unnecessarily excessive demands on time and resources whist a complaint is being investigated; and
• customer submits repeat complaints, after complaint processes have been completed, essentially about the same issues, with additions/variations which the customer insists make these ‘new’ complaints.

What happened

Background

17. Mr and Mrs X have four young children, B, D, F and H. In January 2019, Mr and Mrs X’s relationship broke down after several instances of domestic abuse took place in the family home. The Council drafted an interim safety plan for the children which stated Mr X could not visit the family home.

Mr X’s complaint

18. On 1 May 2019, Mr X raised complaint one at Stage 1 of the Statutory Children’s Act. He said the Council:
1. treated him unfairly because of his gender;
2. ignored videos he had taken of Mrs X behaving abusively; and
3. a social worker spoke to him in a manner he did not like.
19. Mr X asked the Council to apologise, supply social workers who would listen to him and reinstate contact with his children.
20. The Council responded on 15 May 2019. The Council said:
1. a referral had been made to a domestic abuse service on Mr X’s behalf and after assessment Mr X had been deemed the perpetrator of the domestic abuse rather than the victim;
2. the Council asked to see one of the videos Mr X recorded at a meeting on 25 April 2019. The Council asked to see further videos at another meeting on 3 May 2019 and Mr X did not provide them. The Council said it was awaiting further videos; and
3. the social worker had behaved professionally and in line with her role to help safeguard the children.
21. The Council concluded the letter advising Mr X to seek legal advice regarding contact arrangements for the children.
22. On 24 May 2019, Mr X contacted the Council to ask why he could not have supervised contact with his children. The Council advised Mr X that Mrs X had parental responsibility for the children, and he would need to seek legal advice regarding contact arrangements with the children.
23. On 7 June 2019, the children were removed from Mrs X’s care and placed with foster carers.
24. Mr X wrote to the Council on 17 July 2019 to escalate his initial complaint to Stage 2. He raised further complaints, stating that he was unhappy his contact with B was restricted, his children were being poisoned against him and the Council had delayed initiating care proceedings when he raised his concerns about Mrs X’s treatment of the children.
25. In the following weeks Mr X repeatedly asked the Council to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 and attempted to add further complaint points to his complaint. The Council wanted to arrange a meeting to discuss the scope of the investigation. Mr X was unhappy with this and accused the Council of intentionally delaying his complaint.
26. On 16 September 2019, after consulting with Mr X several times about the scope of his complaint, the Council agreed to investigate the following:
1. Mr X said the Council had been biased in its treatment towards him because of his gender and failed to recognise he was the victim of abuse from Mrs X;
2. Mr X said the Council refused to review the video evidence he wanted to provide showing his ex-partner being abusive towards the children;
3. Mr X said the Council asked him to leave the family home without assessing whether he was a victim or helping him seek legal advice;
4. Mr X said the Council led him to believe in 2018 that the children’s Child Protection Plans (CPP) would be stopped but this did not happen;
5. Mr X said the Council failed to recognise Mrs X’s controlling and coercive behaviour towards B; and
6. Mr X said the Council failed to tell him how to make a formal complaint when he expressed his unhappiness with the Council’s actions in 2018.
27. The Council appointed an IO to conduct the Stage 2 investigation. The IO interviewed Mr X and Council employees, then reviewed records kept by social workers regarding the children.
28. The Council sent Mr X the Stage 2 report on 11 December 2019. The IO found:
1. The Council offered Mr X specialist domestic abuse services, who assessed Mr X and considered him the perpetrator of the abuse rather than the victim.
2. A social worker watched two videos provided by Mr X showing Mrs X behaving in an inappropriate manner, but it was unclear what had led to the events shown in the videos. The social worker also felt Mr X was behaving provocatively.
3. The IO upheld Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider Mr X’s allegations that he was the victim of domestic abuse and did not discuss legal advice with Mr X. The IO acknowledged that Mr X had less contact with the children than Mrs X but explained contact arrangements were informed by the children’s wishes and ultimately decided by a judge.
4. The IO upheld Mr X’s complaint regarding his belief the Council misled him by indicating it would cease the CPP because he had seen a report which had not been finalised.
5. The IO found no evidence supporting Mr X’s view that Mrs X had behaved in a coercive or controlling manner towards B.
6. The IO was satisfied the Council advised Mr X how to make a complaint when Mr X expressed unhappiness with the Council’s actions.
29. The IO concluded that Mr X’s overall desire from the investigation was to be able to see more of his children. The IO stated they could not make any changes regarding contact but made the following recommendations:
• The Council should ensure it assists both sides of a domestic abuse in seeking legal counsel; and
• The Council should only share reports with family if they have been approved by a team manager.
30. On 3 January 2020, Mr X complained further (complaint two) because he was unhappy the Council did not tell him the children would be going on holiday with their foster carers. He also raised his unhappiness with the contact arrangements again.
31. The Council upheld this complaint and provided Mr X with an apology and an explanation of changes it had made to its notification system to ensure the issue did not happen again.
32. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked to escalate complaint two on 3 February 2020. He also asked to add the following complaint points:
1. The Council should apologise for failing to provide legal advice to him and Mrs X
2. The Council failed to allow his children to see their wider family
3. The Council failed to accurately record comments he made in meetings discussing the children
33. The Council said it had already considered complaint a) and could not investigate complaint b) because contact arrangements were outside its remit. With regards to complaint c) the Council advised Mr X to discuss the matter with his solicitor as his comments related to information being presented in court. The Council arranged a meeting with Mr X on 6 February 2020 to discuss complaint B but Mr X did not attend.
34. On 29 April 2020 Mr X asked the Council to escalate complaint one to Stage 3 as he was unhappy with the recommendations. He also said he wanted to add a complaint about the social workers appointed to work with his family and their involvement in the reduction of contact with the children to complaint two. He later raised further concerns regarding the social worker, stating they had attempted to undermine his relationship with his children.
35. After receiving multiple emails from Mr X regarding both complaints, the Council applied its unreasonable and persistent complainant policy in late March 2020. The Council told Mr X it had appointed a single point of contact (SPOC) to his case and would no longer respond to every complaint he made. The Council said it would review the decision in three months.
36. On 12 June 2020 the Council confirmed it would escalate complaint one to Stage 3. Mr X responded by asking for his previous complaints regarding contact with the children to be considered in complaint two.
37. On 3 July 2020, the Stage 3 panel upheld the IO’s complaint one findings and recommendations.
38. Over the following weeks, Mr X and the Council were in consistent contact to discuss and agree the scope of the complaint two investigation. The Council sent Mr X a letter on 22 July 2020 explaining it could not investigate matters which related to the court proceedings. The Council also said it wanted to meet with Mr X to discuss the scope of the investigation for complaint two. A further meeting took place on 29 July 2020, where Mr X expressed his desire to add further complaint points to complaint two relating to the Council’s social workers and their management of contact between Mr X and the children to the Stage 2 investigation.
39. The Council and Mr X continued to communicate regarding the scope of the investigation for complaint two. On 4 August 2020 after receiving 71 emails from Mr X, the Council told Mr X it would not accept further complaints from him.
    The Council also explained that the complaints Mr X was raising had either been addressed at complaint one or related to ongoing court proceedings which the Council could not discuss.
40. The Council and Mr X continued to discuss this matter until 24 September 2020 when the matter was referred to the Ombudsman as the two could not come to an agreement.

Findings

41. Mr X complained the Council failed to address concerns he raised about his ex-partner’s parenting. Specifically, he said he tried to provide video evidence that showed his partner was being abusive towards the children, but the Council would not view them. Generally, Mr X remains unhappy with the findings of the Stage 3 panel. The Council investigated this complaint point at all three stages of the statutory complaints procedure and did not uphold the complaint. I have reviewed the investigation and I am satisfied it was conducted appropriately and based on significant evidence. There is nothing to suggest the investigation was flawed or carried out incorrectly. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to re-investigate a complaint the Council has already investigated. There is no fault with the Council’s actions.
42. Mr X said the Council delayed addressing complaints about the conduct of social workers involved with his family. Having reviewed the evidence, it shows Mr X submitted numerous complaints about contact with his children and his perception that the reduction in contact was caused by the social worker’s actions. The Council has told Mr X that contact arrangements are a matter for the courts. The Council has invited Mr X to meetings to discuss the matters it is able to investigate, which Mr X has not always attended. The evidence shows the delay has been caused by Mr X’s unwillingness to accept this. It is open to Mr X to take this matter up with the courts. I can see no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
43. The law requires the Council to carry out the Stage 2 investigation within a maximum of 65 days. The Council delayed carrying out the Stage 2 investigation of complaint one by 21 days. This is fault. As Mr X went on to disagree with the outcome of the investigation and has raised further complaints relating to the complaint points raised in complaint one, the delay did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council was at fault when it delayed carrying out the Stage 2 investigation however, the fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman