Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to make provision for her language difficulties, excluded her from a meeting and failed to take her views on her daughter into account. She also says the Council’s complaint handling was inadequate. The Council is at fault and has agreed a financial remedy and an apology.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, complains that the Council:
1. Failed to arrange an interpreter prior to meetings about her children;
2. Failed to provide notes of a meeting along with an interpreter, having agreed to do so;
3. Failed to send an invitation prior to a virtual meeting;
4. Failed to involve her in decision-making in relation to her daughter or take her views into account in relation to her daughter’s social media contact with a group of other children;
5. Ridiculed her language skills when she mentioned that she used Google Translate to assist her communications; and
6. Failed to respond to her complaints adequately, including taking two weeks to send a complaint form.
2. Mrs X wants to be able to participate fully in future meetings about her children and for her wishes to be taken into account. She seeks a sincere apology for her treatment.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments for her language difficulties, its failure to provide minutes and a meeting link and its complaints handling.

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 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mrs X and considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I sent my draft statement to Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments before producing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs X’s two children were taken into local authority care in March 2020 following a child protection referral. English is not Mrs X’s first language.
9. The Council told me it recognised Mrs X’s language difficulties. It said: “In order to account for our legal duties to make reasonable adjustments, it is the expectation that interpreters would have been booked for every meeting involving the parent or family members.”
10. During summer 2020 the Council did not provide Mrs X with an interpreter during several meetings to discuss her children’s welfare. The first was a meeting in respect of Mrs X’s son in June. After an interpreter failed to attend, the Council re-scheduled the review for the following week. The interpreter was then late in attending the re-scheduled meeting and missed the initial section.
11. The Council then failed to provide an interpreter for a personal education plan (PEP) meeting in respect of Mrs X’s daughter, B. The professionals in attendance nevertheless decided the meeting should go ahead. They told Mrs X everything would be recorded and would be relayed to her via an interpreter after the meeting if she did not understand anything. This was not done. Mrs X told me she was later advised to retrieve the notes of the meeting from B’s school. A staff member employed by the Council at the time told me a face-to-face meeting with Mrs X was held the following month where details of the PEP were discussed with her with an interpreter present.
12. The Council held another virtual meeting about B in July 2020. Mrs X has told me she requested a link for the meeting several times to no avail, though it was sent to all other participants. She said she only received the link half an hour after the meeting had started. Mrs X showed me an email she sent to a Council staff member on the morning of the meeting asking about the meeting. The staff member responds by explaining it will be held that afternoon by Skype. Mrs X sent another email half an hour after the meeting had started saying that she wished to attend. The Council member responded with a one-line email saying only: “You should have been sent a Skype invite for this meeting”.
13. Mrs X wanted to complain to the Council. She says the Council took two weeks to send her a complaint form. It then told her the matters raised were subject to court proceedings and therefore unsuitable to be considered under the complaints process. Mrs X took her complaints to us. She told us she felt “disrespected, ignored and treated like an inconvenience” and that the Council had tried to restrict her ability to participate in meetings.
14. Mrs X’s complaints concerned her ability to contribute to meetings within our jurisdiction. Her complaints were largely separate from the court proceedings, which focused on her children’s welfare. We therefore agreed to investigate.
15. She told us the Council had failed to take her language difficulties into account and ridiculed her for her poor English. She said a Council employee laughed at her when she revealed she used Google Translate for communications about her children’s case.
16. In response to my enquiries the Council told me it spoke on two occasions to the staff member accused of ridiculing Mrs X: when Mrs X first complained and again after receiving my enquiry letter. The employee denied on both occasions that he had ridiculed Mrs X.
17. The Council said it had booked an interpreter for the first June meeting, who then failed to attend. With regards to the interpreter’s late appearance at the rescheduled meeting, it said the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) made six attempts to contact the interpreter and the provider of the interpreter service to rectify the situation. It said the IRO then made a formal complaint about the interpreter’s attendance at both meetings to the service provider. The local authority’s contract manager also contacted the manager of the interpreter service.
18. With regards to B’s PEP meeting the Council said B’s former social worker had forgotten to book an interpreter. B had just been assigned a new social worker, who did not notice her predecessor’s omission. The professionals in attendance decided the meeting should go ahead as they felt Mrs X was able to communicate and there were no concerns about B.
19. During the meeting Mrs X’s opposition to B being given a laptop due to her concerns about B’s social media use was discussed. B’s PEP notes that her parents have asked for her laptop use to be monitored.
20. Both social workers have now left the Council. The Council has not been able to find evidence the social worker contacted Mrs X after this meeting or provided notes. The Council has told me it sincerely apologises for this oversight. It has acknowledged that the meeting should have been rescheduled, or, in the event it was deemed necessary to proceed, the social worker should have contacted Mrs X with an interpreter directly following the meeting to relay the content of the meeting. It also said professionals at the meeting had said Mrs X appeared to have a clear understanding of what was said and participated in the discussions.
21. With regards to B’s review meeting in July, the Council said it sent an email invitation to the professionals involved but had no email address for Mrs X. It sent her a letter the same day, but this was written in English with no translation provided. The Council said the Council staff member responsible was apologetic, adding: “We are considering the most effective way to undertake additional checks regarding invites. This was an unintended oversight and is extremely rare.” Mrs X has told me the Council had her email address.
22. The Council told me it was unable to verify when it sent Mrs X the complaints leaflet as the sender had now left the Council’s employment. It apologised for this. The former Council staff member told me the delay was down to her enquiries as to whether the Council could provide a Polish version of the leaflet. It could not, so she sent out an English version.
23. The Council said when it received Mrs X’s complaint in 2020 it initially thought that considering her concerns via the complaint process could prejudice court proceedings. It invited Mrs X to resubmit her complaint once the court proceedings had ended.

Analysis

24. As Mrs X and the person concerned have provided different accounts of the occasion in which Mrs X says she was ridiculed, I am unable to say what happened. There is insufficient corroboratory evidence to reach a balanced view one way or another.
25. There were occasions when the Council failed to act on its duties under the Equalities Act. It failed to provide an interpreter to Mrs X on two occasions and provided an interpreter late on another occasion. It also failed to provide Mrs X with notes or minutes of the PEP meeting that went ahead without an interpreter.
26. The Council sent Mrs X an invitation to B’s virtual review meeting by letter, which was written in English without a translation. Mrs X has told me the Council had her email address. Given the meeting was being held via Skype, which requires an email address, it would have been good practice for the Council to have obtained Mrs X’s email address if it did not have this already and emailed her a link as well as sending a translated letter. This is fault by the Council.
27. Mrs X had made clear her wish to attend meetings about her children. It would therefore also have been good practice to telephone her after she failed to attend at the start of the meeting. The email chain provided by Mrs X shows that when she contacted the Council half an hour after the meeting had started, she was not immediately offered assistance but simply told she should have been sent an invitation. This is fault by the Council.
28. The Council sent Mrs X a complaint form without a translation and then rejected her complaint. It has not provided a clear explanation for its view that considering her complaints would prejudice the court proceedings. This is fault by the Council.
29. Collectively, the Council’s communication failures have added to Mrs X’s stress at a difficult time and caused her to lose trust in the Council. She feels it has deliberately tried to exclude her from meetings. While I can see no evidence of this, the fact Mrs X has been left with this impression represents an injustice.
30. The Council has agreed to pay £150 and apologise to Mrs X to compensate for the impact of its faults and her time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

Agreed action

31. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. pay £150 to Mrs X to compensate for the impact of its faults and her time and trouble;
2. offer Mrs X a sincere apology.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. It has agreed a financial remedy and apology.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

33. I have not investigated the complaint that the Council failed to consider Mrs X’s views on B’s contact with other children. This is because this issue is due to considered by a court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman