Summary: The Council made false or misleading comments during a strategy meeting. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B, direct readers of the minutes to information about Mrs B’s complaint, including this decision statement, and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mrs B is complaining on behalf of her daughter, J. She complains that professionals made inappropriate comments and shared false and misleading information during a strategy meeting held in October 2019, and that this information remains on J’s social care records. Mrs B says this has caused her significant distress and she has lost trust in the Council.

Back to top

What I investigated

2. I have investigated Mrs B’s complaints about the comments made by Council officers during the strategy meeting. The last section of this statement explains why I have not investigated the comments made by other professionals who were present at the meeting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered the Council’s responses to the complaint; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Children’s services received a referral in relation to Mrs B’s daughter, J, when she was 16 years old. The Council’s Early Help team started to work with the family. Early Help is a service which helps children, young people and their families receive support at an early stage to stop problems escalating.
9. The Council decided to hold a strategy meeting to share information and to ensure that appropriate services and interventions were in place for J. Parents are not normally invited to strategy meetings; they are for professionals to share information and decide whether safeguarding enquiries should be undertaken.
10. At the end of the strategy meeting, it was decided that the threshold for an assessment had not been met and children’s services would be ending their involvement with J.
11. Around ten months later, Mrs B made a subject access request and was provided with a copy of the minutes of the strategy meeting. Mrs B then complained to the Council about comments made by social workers and Early Help workers who attended the meeting. Mrs B also made separate complaints to CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) and to J’s school about the comments of other professionals who attended the meeting.
12. The minutes show that there was concern that Mrs B had not immediately given full consent for Early Help to work with the family, or to communicate with other professionals. They contain comments such as “[Early Help] raised concerns around mum putting barriers and not allowing Early Help to speak to anyone”, “Early Help tried to get a one-to-one with mum and [J] but this was impossible” and “[Early Help] has not been able to get further information from [J] as mum has made it restrictive”.
13. I consider some of the comments about Mrs B’s engagement with Early Help were false or misleading. The minutes should not state that it was impossible to get a one-to-one with Mrs B or J. One-to-one meetings did take place with Mrs B and J and so it was clearly not impossible. The minutes also wrongly state that Mrs B was restricting J’s contact with Early Help. The evidence shows that Mrs B and J met the Early Help worker after they were provided with information about the process, and then when Early Help asked to meet J on a fortnightly basis, Mrs B immediately agreed.
14. Mrs B told the Early Help worker that she would only be able to attend meetings herself on a monthly basis due to work commitments but could speak to the worker on the phone.
15. Mrs B did not give consent for Early Help workers to visit J at home or speak to other members of the family. At the time of the strategy meeting, Mrs B had not given consent for Early Help to communicate with other professionals. Mrs B says the Early Help process is voluntary and consent based. She considers the Council should have made it clear that it would be viewed as suspicious or obstructive if she did not give her full consent immediately.
16. In the Council’s responses to Mrs B’s complaints, it explained why social workers were concerned, but it accepts that they should have been explicit with Mrs B and discussed their concerns with her directly. It says that it will ensure its records show that Mrs B encouraged J to attend the Early Help meetings every two weeks.
17. Mrs B was entitled to not give consent for Early Help workers to visit J at home, speak to other family members or other professionals. But it should have been made clear to Mrs B that it causes the Council concern when a parent refuses to provide full consent. The Council should have ensured it understood Mrs B’s reasons for withholding full consent, and then relayed this information to other professionals present at the strategy meeting.
18. Mrs B considers some of the comments made during the strategy meeting were discriminatory. I cannot determine whether a body has unlawfully discriminated against an individual; only a court can do that.
19. I am satisfied by the Council’s explanation for many of the comments which aggrieve Mrs B. I accept that it is important to consider parents’ and children’s ethnicity and culture when carrying out assessments and I do not consider it was wrong for social workers to consider possible reasons why Mrs B did not want any further involvement with children’s services. I accept the Council’s reasons for commenting on J having ‘no filter’ and have seen nothing to suggest it was said to enable other professionals to use this against her, as Mrs B believes to be the case. I am also satisfied that it was not inappropriate for the chair to state that there were no concerns about gang association.
20. Some of the comments made during the meeting were professional opinions or professional curiosity, such as finding it difficult to raise concerns with Mrs B, whether Mrs B was able to adequately monitor J’s use of social media and whether she used her profession to her advantage. In the Council’s responses to Mrs B’s complaints, it accepted that such judgements should be explored with parents and concerns discussed openly so that parents are aware of how their actions inform professional opinions. While I agree with the Council’s response here, professionals should be able to share their views openly at strategy meetings.
21. The minutes include some comments about J’s relationship with her family which Mrs B disputes. The Council says that the comments were made by J, but it accepts that it should have spoken to Mrs B about them. It would have been helpful if the Early Help worker had explained during the meeting that the comments had not been discussed with Mrs B or confirmed to be accurate.
22. The minutes state, “[Early Help] explained that the reason for involvement and what it would entail was explained to mum but her response is always that she is busy and wants to focus on the little one who is on EHCP”. Mrs B says this is not true and she considers it to be contemptuous and malicious. In the Council’s responses to Mrs B’s complaints, it failed to explain why the Early Help worker said this. It also contradicts another comment in the minutes which states how far Mrs B goes to ensure all of her children receive adequate support. On the balance of probabilities, I do not consider Mrs B’s response to Early Help is always that she is busy and wants to focus on the little one, and so this should not have been stated during the meeting. This was fault.
23. I consider the Council’s failings in this case have caused Mrs B distress and she has lost trust in the Council.

Agreed action

24. Within four weeks of my decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mrs B and J for the failings in this case;
• make a payment of £100 to Mrs B;
• send a copy of my final decision statement to everyone who was present at the meeting; and
• ensure anyone reading the strategy meeting minutes on the Children’s Social Care records is directed to a copy of my final decision statement, and to the information held on the complaints file.
25. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• take action to ensure it is made clear to families how it may be viewed if they do not provide full consent to Early Help; and
• issue a reminder/guidance to staff that they should be clear and open with parents, their language should be respectful and considerate, and their analysis should be non-judgemental and properly explored with the family.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaints about the comments made by professionals representing the school or CAMHS (which is part of the NHS). The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate comments made by school professionals. In some circumstances we can carry out a joint investigation with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) to investigate the actions of the NHS and the Council. I have decided not to do so in this case because there was enough information to reach a decision on Mrs B’s complaint against the Council, without investigating the actions of the NHS. Mrs B may wish to contact the PHSO if she would like to pursue her complaint against the NHS.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman