Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s response to child protection concerns. The Council is at fault, has caused injustice and has agreed financial remedies.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, made numerous complaints to the Council about its handling of a child protection investigation. Many of these complaints were upheld including a complaint relating to a data breach. The Council has separately negotiated a settlement with Miss X for distress arising from the data breach. Miss X seeks an additional remedy in respect of the remainder of her complaints. She also complains of delays in handling her complaint.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaints.

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. 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

5. I spoke to Miss X and considered information provided by the Council and by Miss X. I shared my draft statement with Miss X and the Council and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children in Need

6. Councils have a duty under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to provide additional services and support to certain children who have complex needs, including children with disabilities and health problems.
7. A Child in Need (CIN) assessment identifies the needs of the child and any support the family require to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. A CIN plan details the support to be provided to a child and/or their family by Children’s Services. CIN assessments and plans are voluntary processes.

What happened

8. In 2018 a safeguarding referral about Miss X was made to the Council by her then partner’s probation officer. Her partner had a history of domestic violence. The Council carried out an assessment and no further action was taken. In October 2019 Miss X moved to a different address and was expecting a baby. The Council received a second referral from her former partner’s probation officer.
9. Miss X made several complaints to the Council about its response to this referral. At Stage 2 of the complaints process an independent investigator upheld or partially upheld 16 complaints. The most serious of these are as follows:
1. The Council delayed in informing Miss X of the outcome of its assessment following the referral, meaning she was left in a position of uncertainty during the late stages of her pregnancy and premature birth. The Council said its investigation report was completed within the statutory 45 working day timescale but that a lack of case recording made it impossible to say when Miss X was advised of the outcome. It said there was also clearly delay in progression of a Child in Need (CIN) plan detailing Miss X’s child’s support needs;
2. The CIN Plan was not provided in a timely manner and Miss X was not sent CIN meeting notes;
3. A social worker assessment wrongly recorded that Miss X concealed her pregnancy;
4. Information about Miss X’s children was wrongly shared with her current partner and information about Miss X and her current partner was wrongly shared with her former partner. Information was also wrongly shared with a different family;
5. A social work report for a child protection conference included incorrect information;
6. The Council failed to address Miss X’s concerns about conflict of interest.
10. Miss X then came to us. She said she had suffered severe anxiety and stress during pregnancy and in the period immediately following the premature birth of her child as a result of the Council’s actions. She feared her children would be removed from her. She sought financial compensation for this. Miss X also complained about the delay in the Council’s response to her complaint. She filed her initial complaint in June 2019 and did not receive the Stage 2 response until April 2020.
11. In its response to my enquiries the Council said the independent investigating officer had considered Miss X’s desired outcomes at Stage 2 of the complaints process and had made a number of recommendations. It also said it had negotiated a settlement with Miss X which reflected distress connected to the data breach. It said this was clearly linked to [Miss X’s] entire complaint and that no further monetary offer would be made.
12. The Council told me the delay in responding to Miss X’s complaints was partly due to staff absence over summer 2019 and partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It has apologised to Miss X for the delay. It also pointed out that Miss X raised additional complaints in October 2019 and these were dealt with via a meeting between Miss X and a senior manager.

Analysis

13. Miss X complained about a number of matters that are not linked to the data breach. In particular she complained that she was not told the outcome of the assessment during a period in which she was vulnerable due to her pregnancy and premature birth of her child. She said she was advised her children had been put on a CIN plan while she was at the hospital but did not understand what this meant. The Council has confirmed that the report was completed in well under 45 working days but cannot say when Miss X was advised of the outcome or when it was explained to her that CIN is a voluntary process, which would have relieved her anxiety. It also accepts there was delay in providing the CIN plan. The Council also accepts that it recorded incorrect information about Miss X and that its response to her complaint was delayed.
14. The Council has taken significant positive steps to put things right for Miss X prior to the complaint coming to our office. However, the Council has caused significant additional distress to Miss X which was not linked to the data breach. The Council has apologised for these faults, but Miss X does not feel this is an adequate remedy.
15. The Council has agreed to pay £300 to remedy the distress caused by the Council’s faults (excluding the data breach) and a further to £200 to compensate Miss X for her time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. The Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will pay Miss X:
1. £300 to compensate for the distress caused by the complaints upheld in the Stage 2 report (excluding those complaints about data breaches)
2. £200 to compensate for Miss X’s time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have closed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council which caused injustice. The Council has agreed financial remedies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman