Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council and the Chair during a child protection conference. Her representative, Mr D, says this caused her frustration and to lose faith in the Council. The Council found fault in its actions during its complaint procedure and made suitable recommendations to address any injustice to Mrs B. The Council’s complaint investigation was robust and without fault, therefore we did not investigate the substantive matter.

The complaint

1. Mr D, complained on behalf of Mrs B, about the actions of the Council and the Chair during a child protection conference in December 2019. Mr D says this caused her frustration and to lose faith in the Council.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I considered the Council’s complaint investigation into its actions from December 2019 onwards. The actions of the Council between July and October 2019 were the subject of a previous Ombudsman investigation.
3. I did not make any finding about the alleged misconduct of the Chair of the December 2019 child protection conference. This is because there is another agency better placed to consider this, Social Work England.

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. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether individual social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.

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:
• Mrs B’s complaint and the information Mr D provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
10. Mrs B, Mr D and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Corporate complaint procedure

11. The Council has a two-stage corporate complaint procedure:
• Stage one: The relevant service manager will respond to the complaint within 10 working days. If the complaint is complicated, the Council may need more time, but it let the complainant know if this is the case.
• Stage two: The complaints manager will respond within 20 working days. If the complaint is a lot more complex, the Council may need more time to resolve it, but it will let the complainant know if this is the case.

Statutory complaint investigation

12. Section 26(3) of the Children Act, 1989 says all functions of the council under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. The statutory guidance, Getting the Best from Complaints, explains councils’ responsibilities. Councils have discretion to consider complaints about other functions under the Children Act using the statutory complaints procedure.
13. The statutory complaints procedure had three stages:
• Stage one: Staff at point of service delivery try to resolve the complaint.
• Stage two: An investigating officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO is responsible for the investigation and the IP ensures the process is open, transparent and fair.
• Stage Three: The complaint is considered by a review panel. The Panel must consist of three independent people. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 19(2) and 20(1)).

COVID-19

14. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. From March to May 2020, England was in the first of three national lockdowns. People could only leave their home for limited purposes including travelling to and from work, but only where this was absolutely necessary. In May 2020, the Government said people who could not work from home should return to the workplace. In September 2020, the Government announced new restrictions including working from home. A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020.
15. The government briefly relaxed the timescales for holding stage three review panels where these could not take place for a reason relating to COVID-19. It did not relax the timescales for carrying out stage one and two of the statutory complaint procedure.

What happened

16. Child C was born abroad and came to live in this country with her aunt Mrs B. Mrs B shares parental responsibility with C’s parents, who have remained living abroad. In July 2019, C told a member of staff at her school of a sexual abusive incident when visiting relatives. The school referred this to children’s services. It was decided the Council and the Police would carry out a joint child protection investigation. Professionals raised concerns about C being at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM), physical abuse and neglect. The actions of the Council between July and October 2019 were the subject of an earlier Ombudsman investigation. In response to that investigation, the Council apologised to the family, made a payment to recognise the injustice caused and made service improvements.
17. The Council held a review child protection conference in December 2019. The social worker recommended the case was stepped down to child in need, which is voluntary. C’s family said they did not want to be subject to a child in need plan. The chair of the conference decided C should remain subject to child protection planning as the family would not agree to work with the Council under child in need. C remained subject to a child protection plan until March 2020. Mr D complained about the December 2019 child protection conference and that the Council did not tell them their social worker would change.

Stage one

18. The Council responded at stage one in March 2020. The Council accepted the family’s social worker did not tell them why their case was being reallocated and there was a delay assigning a new social worker. The Council apologised for the inconvenience this caused the family. It did not find any problems with the December 2019 child protection conference.

Stage two

19. Mr D told the Council he was unhappy with their response, and he would like it considered at stage two of its complaint procedure. The Council said it would consider the complaint at stage two but there may be a delay because of COVID-19. Mr D agreed the Council could postpone the stage two investigation until the COVID-19 restrictions eased.
20. Mr D contacted the Council in June 2020 for an update. The Council assigned the investigation to an independent investigator in July 2020. The independent investigator visited Mrs B and Mr D and sent them a statement of complaint. Mrs B and Mr D agreed the statement in August 2020.
21. The independent investigator completed the stage two report in August 2020 and found:
• the child protection investigation was thorough because of the known risks to C and not because of discrimination.
• the Chair of the child protection conference was not oppressive when she asked for a more extensive family genogram for C.
• the Council sent Mr D copies of the child protection conference minutes by recorded delivery.
• the Chair’s practice to be thorough and professional throughout. The Chair did not try to force C’s family to accept a child in need plan.
• the Chair followed legislation and ensured C’s safety was not compromised by an incomplete investigation.
• Mrs B and Mr D asked to re-schedule the core group meeting resulting in it being postponed, not the Council.
• C’s social worker did not tell the family she was leaving and there was a delay allocating a new social worker.
• there was not consistency of social workers, and this was not good practice.
22. The independent investigator recommended the Council:
• apologise for the faults found.
• send C’s family minutes from the child protection conference and the case closure meeting, and the letter confirming the case was closed.
• consider giving families documents by hand.
• give families notice when a social worker is leaving and do not delay allocating a new social worker. If the case is left without an allocated social worker for a period, a designated practitioner should have responsibility for keeping in contact with the family.
• careful consideration should be given to dialect when sourcing an interpreter.
• arrange an informal meeting between the Chair, Mrs B and Mr D to discuss the obligations the Council has towards the safety of children and to explain the reasons decisions were made in this case.
• consider making a payment to Mrs B in recognition of her distress and perceived experience of discrimination.
23. The Council wrote to Mr D. It apologised for the circumstances that led him to complaint and the impact of the family. The Council said:
• it was reviewing its interpreter guidance.
• it was reviewing its practice standards which would give it the opportunity to review expectations for social work allocation with managers and staff.
• it would review the outcome of his complaint with managers at its Learning and Improvement Panel.
• its practice development team manager would contact his family to discuss how they could provide their perspectives on FGM to help raise awareness amongst its staff.
• its child protection advisor would contact him to reflect on the issues raised.
• it would like to offer a compensation award to recognise the impact this matter has had.
24. Mr D said he was unhappy with the independent investigator’s report. He said it did not address all the issues he raised and did not uphold all his complaints. He also complained the Council did not assign an independent person.

Stage three

25. The Council told Mr D he had two options, he could take his complaint to the Ombudsman or request a stage three panel. Mr D asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three.
26. The Council held a virtual stage three review panel in November 2020. Mr D attended, Mrs B did not. The panel’s report states this panel was, ‘considered under the children act 1989 representations procedure (England) regulations 2006’. The panel found:
• the family were discriminated against by the child protection conference which took the general view of FGM issues from the country where C was born and applied these to C’s family without specific evidence or thought for their views on the subject matter.
• the Chair’s request for a more in-depth family tree was unnecessary.
• Mr D did not receive minutes from the child protection conference or the case closure meeting, or a letter confirming the case was closed.
• the Council did not clearly communicate with the family that if they did not agree to engage in a child in need plan, C would have to stay on a child protection plan.
• the Council failed in its duty and responsibilities on the implementation of C’s care plans.
• the Council did not hold core group meeting after the child protection conference in December 2019.
27. The panel made the following recommendations:
• The Council records when correspondence is sent to service users in particular, child protection conference minutes and key letters.
• The Council ensures information is given to parents/carers of children subject to a child protection conference so the difference between child in need and child protection plans is clear.
• The Director of Children’s Services writes to Mr D offering his apology for his experiences relating to this complaint.
• The Council provides clear references in its complaints correspondence to define the purpose of letters and include the relevant next steps at each stage of the process.
• The Council appoints an Independent Person to work with any Investigation Officer in relation to all complaints considered under its statutory procedure at stage two.
• The Council is clear with complainants on its use of mediation within the complaints procedure and the options available to them
• The Council considers making a time and trouble payment in respect of this complaint.
• The Council takes up Mr D’s offer of assistance in any future training opportunities.
• Formal complaints training for officers dealing with stage one investigations and responses.
• Clear process is considered for investigating complaints about the Chair of the child protection conference and the child protection conference process.
• The Council should send the outstanding documents to Mr D.
28. The Council wrote to Mr D in December 2020. It said it agreed with the stage three panel’s findings about four complaints and did not agree with its findings about the other three. It explained the reasons it disagreed with three of the findings. It said it did not discriminate against him or his family based on their cultural heritage; the family tree was discussed in the context of safeguarding; and it had given him information about child protection planning. The Council accepted the stage three panels’ recommendations and explained the actions it would take.
29. The Council sent Mr D a letter of apology and paid him £250 to recognise the time and trouble he had been put to.
30. In response to enquiries, the Council provided evidence it has fulfilled all except two of the recommendations. The outstanding actions are:
• For Mrs B and Mr D to be invited to support staff training around FGM.
• To arrange an informal meeting between the Chair, Mrs B and Mr D to discuss the obligations the Council has towards the safety of children and to explain the reasons decisions were made in this case.
31. It explained it wanted to wait for the conclusion of all formal matters related to the complaint before undertaking these actions. It stated it is committed to fulfilling these recommendations at the appropriate time.

Analysis

32. Section 26(3) of the Children Act, 1989 says all functions of the council under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. This does not include complaints about the child protection procedure. Therefore, the Council did not need to consider the complaint under the statutory complaint procedure.
33. The Council used its discretion to ask an independent investigator to complete an investigation at stage two and to hold a stage three panel meeting. These stages provided significant independence and detailed analysis of the concerns raised by Mrs B and Mr D. I did not find any fault with how these stages were conducted and therefore reinvestigation of the substantive matters was neither necessary nor warranted.
34. However, there was a lack of clarity from the Council about whether it was using its corporate or statutory procedure to investigate its complaint. This was recognised by the stage three review panel which made suitable recommendations to address this issue. The Council accepted and acted on these. There is no outstanding injustice to Mrs B or Mr D from this fault as they received a more thorough investigation than if the Council had followed its corporate complaint procedure.
35. As discusses, the Council used its discretion to carry out a more thorough investigation than would have been achieved if it had followed the corporate complaint procedure. However, as it deviated from its corporate complaint policy, it is unclear what timescales it needed to meet for each stage of the process. Using the timescales in the corporate and statutory complaint procedures as a guide, I considered there was some delay in the progression of the investigation. This was remedied by the Council which made a payment to Mr D for the time and trouble he was put to.
36. The Council evidenced it had completed most of the recommendations made by the stage two investigating officer and stage three panel. I considered the Council’s explanation for not completing the outstanding recommendations satisfactory and noted it intended to complete now my investigation is concluded.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs B's complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. I am satisfied the Council has taken action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

38. Mr D complained about the professional practice of the Chair of the child protection conference. The Ombudsman considers the actions of the Council as a corporate body rather than the actions of individual officers. Mr D can complain to the registration body for social workers, Social Work England. This body is responsible for upholding standards of professional social work practice and can consider complaints of unfitness to practice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman