Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for providing misinformation and wrongly telling Miss Y to tell her employer of her involvement with children’s social care, causing her to lose her job. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for failing to remedy the injustice caused to Miss Y, resulting in further delay and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for placing Miss Y’s child on the child protection register. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y, provide her with a financial remedy and review how it considers remedies for injustice caused by maladministration.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council’s assessment of risk to her child was based on misinformation, and her child should not have been placed on the child protection register.
2. Miss Y complains the Council wrongly advised her that she needed to inform her employers of her involvement with children’s social care. Miss Y complains that this advice had an impact on her, her child and her professional career.
3. Miss Y also complains the Council has not properly considered the recommendation made during the complaints process of a financial remedy to Miss Y.

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. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered Miss Y’s complaint and the information she provided. I also considered information provided by the Council and the correspondence between Miss Y and the Council. I sent Miss Y and the Council a draft of my decision and considered the comments I received from both before issuing my final decision. 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

What I found

Councils’ child protection duties

9. 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. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
10. These duties are set out in Statutory Guidance 'Working together to safeguard children'.
• When a council receives a referral about a child who may be at risk it makes initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family and assesses the information.
• Where the initial assessment shows a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm the council must hold a strategy discussion or meeting, jointly with the police where appropriate.
• If the strategy meeting decides to start a child protection enquiry, a social worker carries out a child and family assessment. The Guidance sets out the principles for a good assessment which should be child-centred, focusing on the action and outcomes for children and hearing their voice. It should involve the family, and identify strengths and protective factors as well as risks to the safety and welfare of the children.
• The assessment may result in a decision to hold a multi-agency Child Protection Conference, which may agree a Child Protection Plan. The Council keeps the Plan under review and will end the Plan when a Review Child Protection Conference considers it is no longer needed to keep the children safe. The Council may then treat the child as a Child in Need and offer support under a Child in Need Plan.

What happened

11. The Council received an anonymous referral about a child protection concern for Miss Y’s daughter, Z.
12. The Council completed an assessment on Miss Y and Z, and determined that Z was at risk. The Council completed a safety plan with Miss Y about keeping Z safe. During the assessment, Miss Y told the Council of her employment, and this information was recorded in the assessment.
13. Miss Y complained to the Council that it had wrongly placed Z on a child protection plan. Miss Y complained the Council had assessed Z based on malicious information, and the assessment had been carried out without reason or clear timeframes.
14. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response did not uphold Miss Y’s complaint. It explained how it had assessed the risk posed to Z and the timeframes to which Miss Y could expect a completed assessment.
15. The Council’s stage 1 complaint also advised Miss Y to tell her employer of her involvement with social care. The Council said it would seek advice from the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) about whether the Council must tell Miss Y’s employer.
16. Miss Y discussed her circumstances with her employer. Shortly after this discussion, Miss Y’s employers terminated her employment.
17. The Council completed its assessment and section 47 enquiries and held a child protection conference. At the conference, the Council placed Z on the child protection register, with actions to work with Miss Y on how to keep Z safe, and a continuation of the safety plan.
18. The Council sought advice from its Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) who advised that Miss Y’s role was not regulated, and therefore she did not need to tell her employers.
19. Miss Y escalated her complaint to stage 2. The stage 2 report upheld the part of the complaint that Miss Y had not received adequate communication from the Council and on some occasions had been given misinformation. It highlighted the Council had “failed to undertake a thorough assessment informed by relevant information from the neighbouring authority”, and this caused workers to share inaccurate information. It also acknowledged the Council had not given Miss Y a copy of the safety plan.
20. However, the stage 2 report also determined that more robust communication and information sharing would still have resulted in section 47 enquiries being made and Z being placed on the child protection register.
21. The stage 2 report also upheld Miss Y’s complaint that the Council wrongly told her she needed to tell her employers of her involvement with children’s social care. It advised that Miss Y should not have been told to tell her employers until the Council had sought advice from the LADO.
22. The stage 3 panel found the explanations for involvement were unclear and thus the statutory basis for intervention was unclear. It also upheld the Council provided misinformation to Miss Y and used terms that could have been interpreted in different ways.
23. The stage 3 panel partially upheld Miss Y’s complaint that her request for information had gone unanswered. It found that whilst the Council did seek out the information, it should have gone further in conducting additional risk assessments and analysis.
24. The stage 3 panel also upheld Miss Y’s complaint that she was given wrong advice to inform her employers of her involvement with social care. It acknowledged the impact that this had had on her and her child. The stage 3 panel recommended the Council consider Miss Y’s request for “compensation” because of this maladministration and the injustice it caused to Miss Y. It also recommended the Council write a letter to any prospective employer of Miss Y advising that she had been required to disclose personal information wrongly.
25. The Stage 3 panel also recommended the Council develop further learning for managers. It also recommended the Council remind to frontline staff of the importance of securing current, accurate and relevant information when conducting section 47 enquiries.
26. The Panel also recommended that frontline managers would be given briefings with explanations on the role of the LADO and their responsibilities.
27. The Council carried out the changes recommended by the Panel, however it did not consider Miss Y’s request for financial compensation and instead directed her to file a legal claim.
28. Miss Y submitted a legal claim to the Council’s insurers. The Council declined this and told Miss Y that further information would be required should she continue to pursue it.
29. When Miss Y complained to the Ombudsman, part of her complaint was the Council were asking information about her current earnings and financial circumstances if she wishes to pursue the legal claim. Miss Y felt that she had not needed to submit a legal claim and was concerned about being asked for details of her new employer because of what had previously happened.

Analysis

The Council should not have placed Z on the child protection register

30. The stage 3 panel found the Council initially conducted its assessment under section 17 Child in Need legislation. The panel found the initial referral met the threshold for section 47 investigation. It found had the Council conducted an assessment under this legislation, the rational for intervention and its implementation would likely have been made clearer to Miss Y. The panel found that if the assessment had been conducted using section 47 legislation, it is likely the case would have progressed to a child protection conference sooner.
31. Having reviewed records from the Council, I agree with the stage 3 panel that Miss Y was at times given misinformation by the Council, and its information collection and sharing was at times inadequate. If the Council had conducted its assessment using the appropriate legislation, it is likely that Miss Y had been provided with correct information. This would have made the Council’s reason for intervention clearer and would not have caused Miss Y confusion and ongoing distress.
32. The Council has carried out changes to how it works and provided training for staff, however it did not remedy any injustice to Miss Y. This was fault by the Council.
33. However, it is also my view that if the Council had used section 47 legislation during its assessment, the Council would still have convened a child protection conference. The decision to place Z on the child protection register was that of the panel and was a decision by the chair based on the evidence.
34. In response to my draft decision, Miss Y said that because of the panel being given incorrect information at the conference, it had no choice but to place her child on the child protection register until the correct information was provided. I have considered Miss Y comment, however it is not possible to know what the panel may or may not have decided if the correct information had been provided. Notes from the conference show that the panel decision was not solely based on the presentation of that information, but on other factors as well. It is possible that the panel would still have placed Miss Y’s child on the child protection register.
35. The Ombudsman cannot find fault with decisions where there is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process. I have reviewed the assessment, and records of the child protection conference, and the full investigation conducted by the stage 3 panel. I can see no evidence of fault in the decisions made in the stage 3 panel’s findings or the chairs consideration of evidence at the child protection conference. Therefore, I do not uphold Miss Y’s complaint the Council wrongly placed her child on the child protection register.

The Council wrongly advised Miss Y to tell her employers

36. The stage 3 panel upheld Miss Y’s complaint the Council wrongly advised Miss Y to tell her employers about the intervention from social care. It recommended the Council consider Miss Y’s request for compensation due to the maladministration and injustice caused by the Council wrongly advising her to tell her employers of her involvement with social care.
37. I have reviewed the Council’s case notes and discussions with the LADO, and its stage 1 response to Miss Y. I uphold Miss Y’s complaint that she was wrongly advised to inform her employers. The Council sought advice from the LADO after advising Miss Y to speak with her employers. It is the panels view, and my view that this was fault, and the Council should have sought advice before discussing this with Miss Y.
38. I have reviewed the documents and correspondence from Ms Y’s previous employer. It is my view that Miss Y informing her employers of the ongoing intervention by social care was the reason for her employment being terminated. If Miss Y had not been wrongly advised to tell her employer, it is likely she would not have lost her job. Miss Y has since found alternative employment, however her earnings are now lower.
39. The Ombudsman is not a court or employment tribunal, and it is difficult to quantify the injustice caused to Miss Y. The Ombudsman also cannot remedy future injustice such as a reduction in future earnings. However, it is my view Miss Y lost her job because of the Council’s actions, and that this is fault by Council causing Miss Y significant injustice.

The Council did not consider the panel’s recommendation for a financial remedy

40. Following the stage 3 panel’s recommendation, the Council then directed Miss Y to make a legal claim, which it then denied, as it could not identify “significant quantifiable loss”.
41. Although the stage 3 panel used the term “compensation”, it identified the financial payment would be for maladministration and injustice caused to Miss Y. It is my view that this is fault by the Council, and it should have offered Miss Y a financial remedy.
42. Additionally, by wrongly advising Miss Y that she needs to submit a legal claim instead of providing a remedy, the Council has caused Miss Y further unnecessary distress. I uphold Miss Y’s complaint the Council did not properly consider the panel recommendation for a financial remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within 8 weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss Y and pay her a sum of £4000 in recognition of the loss of her job and having to seek new employment.
• Pay Miss Y the sum of £600 in recognition of the distress caused by losing her job because of wrong advice by the Council.
• Pay Miss Y a sum of £200 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by poor communication and information sharing.
• Pay Miss Y a sum of £200 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her by telling her to file a legal claim and failing to consider her request and the Panel’s recommendation of a financial remedy.
• Review how the Council considers recommendations for financial remedies where maladministration and injustice are identified.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for providing misinformation to Miss Y and failing to remedy the injustice caused by this. I do not find fault with the Council for placing Miss Y’s child on the child protection register.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman