Summary: The Council was at fault for its record-keeping after receiving information about the welfare of Mr B’s son. Because of this, it is unable to provide evidence that it properly dealt with the information. The Council has apologised to Mr B and has offered £500 to recognise his, and his son’s, distress. This is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complained to the Council about the involvement of its children’s social work department with his son, whom I refer to as C. At the time, C lived with his mother in the Council’s area. Now, he lives with Mr B elsewhere in the country.
2. The Council investigated the issues Mr B raised under the Children Act 1989 children’s complaints procedure, and upheld all but one of his complaints. Mr B brings the remaining complaint to us for consideration.
3. Mr B says C’s school sent information to the Council, in 2017, about C (who was six years old) taking ‘live ammunition’ into school. He says the Council should have assessed C’s welfare when it received the information, but it did not do so.
4. Mr B also says that, when the Council conducted an assessment later for a different reason, it should have included the information about the ammunition in the assessment, but it did not do so.
5. Mr B says he wants the Council held to account for ‘gross negligence’.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
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 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

9. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

10. The independent investigator, at stage 2 of the Children Act complaints procedure, agreed that the information about C taking ammunition into school did not feature in the Council’s assessment, but found that the Council did consider it as part of the ‘overall assessment’. He did not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
11. The review panel, at stage 3 of the complaints procedure, changed the finding from ‘not upheld’ to ‘not proven’ because of gaps in the Council’s recording of the incident with the ammunition.
12. The Council accepted the findings of the panel, and said to Mr B:

… we do accept that record keeping at the time was not to the standard we would expect. This has unfortunately left us in a position of being unable to reach a judgement on whether the incident relating to live ammunition was dealt with as thoroughly as we would expect. This does not mean there were any failings, it means we cannot reach a judgement on this.

13. The Council offered Mr B a remedy payment of £500, to recognise the distress of both C and himself, as well as the time and trouble he took making the complaint.

My findings

14. In deciding how to approach an investigation, I must consider not only whether it is likely I would find fault with a council, but also whether it is likely further investigation would lead to a different outcome, or would achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
15. The Council has acknowledged that its record-keeping was unacceptable, to the extent that the review panel felt it could not make a finding on Mr B’s complaint. Because of this, it is likely the Council cannot provide evidence that it acted properly in response to receiving the information from C’s school. This means the Council was at fault.
16. I have based this on the Council’s own comments following the review panel. Given that it appears the records do not exist to prove or disprove what Mr B has said, it is unlikely a more detailed investigation of Mr B’s complaint would lead to a different outcome.
17. Although Mr B refers to ‘gross negligence’ by the Council, this not a finding I can make. Nor can I recommend significant compensation for distress. Only a court can do either of these things.
18. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says a remedy payment for distress is often between £100 and £300 (although in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, more may be justified). And the Council has already offered Mr B £500.
19. Even if I fully investigated Mr B’s complaint, and – contrary to what the stage 3 panel said – found that the Council’s records supported his account, it appears unlikely (based on what I have seen) that I would have grounds to say the Council’s proposed remedy – which already exceeds the Ombudsman’s recommended range for distress payments – is unsatisfactory.
20. Because of this, a more detailed investigation would be unlikely to lead to a better outcome for Mr B, and I have made no further recommendations of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council was at fault for its record-keeping after receiving information about C’s welfare. Because of this, it is unable to provide evidence that it properly dealt with the information. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman