North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 627)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 07 Sep 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr A complained the Council refused to deal with his concerns about the care and medical treatment of his son. He also said it had wrongly restricted his access to its services. As a result, Mr A said he experienced uncertainty and distress. The Council agreed it was at fault on some parts of Mr A’s complaint. It offered a payment to Mr A and made service improvements. We found the Council’s remedies to be appropriate to address the injustice caused and improve its services. We found no fault in the Council decision or its review of the restrictions it imposed on Mr A, as it acted as set out in its Policy. In addition, a court has since considered information relevant to Mr A’s complaint about his son’s medical treatment and information sharing. We cannot therefore consider this matter further.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr A, complained the Council had refused to deal with his ongoing complaints about the care of his son and had wrongly continued to restrict his access to services. He said he has been denied information which he was entitled to, including the circumstances around his son’s medical treatment in late 2019.
  2. As a result, Mr A said he has experienced distress and emotional harm due to the uncertainty about the care his son has received.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated how the Council considered and responded to Mr A’s concerns about his son’s medical treatment and wellbeing, including its decision to restrict how it communicated with him.
  2. The final paragraph of this statement explains why I have not considered other parts of Mr A’s complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

  1. As part of my investigation, I have:
    • considered Mr A’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
    • discussed the complaint with Mr A;
    • considered the information provided by the Council and its policies; and
    • given Mr A and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and considered the comments they made.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

  1. The Children Act 1989 sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an independent investigator and an independent person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review.
  2. “Getting the Best from Complaints” is guidance issued to councils on the implementing the children’s complaint procedure. This guidance includes advice on dealing with “unreasonably persistent complainants”. It states that this may include “frequent, lengthy, complicated and stressful contact with local authority staff” and “the complainant behaving in an aggressive manner to staff or being verbally abusive or threatening". The guidance states that where a council decides to restrict access to the complaints procedure, a warning should be made to the complainant and any restrictions then imposed should be appropriate and proportionate.
  3. The Council has a policy and procedure for a register of individuals who threaten, are abusive or violent towards Council employees. It calls this register an Unacceptable Behaviour towards Officers. Where the council places a service user on its register it ordinarily formally notifies the person of this by letter. The council’s procedure says it will review inclusion on the register at every six months.
  4. A council may apply to court for a care order if it is concerned a child is suffering significant harm whilst in the care of his or her parents. If a court agrees to award a full care order the council will gain parental responsibility for the child.
  5. A child who is the subject of a full care order will be looked after by the council and usually placed with another suitable family member, foster carers or in a residential unit. They become a ‘looked after child’ for whom the council then has a number of duties. The council has a general duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child and to plan the child’s care provision including provision for the child’s health, education, emotional and behavioural development, family relationships and self-care skills. It also has a duty to consider the child’s wishes and feelings and to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child’s parents.
  6. A looked after child must have regular reviews to address all aspects of the care plan and which involves those people who are most closely involved in the child’s care. They are chaired by an independent reviewing officer and should take place at six monthly intervals at least and may be specifically arranged outside of these timescales if there is a significant event that impacts on the care plan. Parents would ordinarily be invited to a review. If a decision is made not to invite a parent, the independent reviewing officer must be involved in this decision and the reason for this is recorded on the child’s records file.

What happened

  1. Mr A has a son, Child X, who lived with him. He is separated from Child X’s mother.
  2. In 2019 the Police investigated allegations about Mr A. As a result, a safeguarding concern was raised about Child X’s wellbeing.
  3. The Council’s Children’s Social Care Team got involved and it decided Child X should be taken into its care and be placed with a member of Mr A’s family (the Carer). The Council told Mr A it would provide weekly updates on Child X’s wellbeing.
  4. Mr A complained to the Council about how its officers handled the process and said some of the information it held about him had been misrepresented. He also did not agree with the restriction it had put in place for his visits with Child X.
  5. In response the Council apologised if Mr A felt it had misrepresented information about him in its reports. It explained why it had put restrictions in place for his visits with Child A, which was partly due to the ongoing Police investigation. It did not agree it had misrepresented the information but said it would include his view in its records.
  6. In mid-2019 Child X had an infection to his leg. He saw a GP and was prescribed antibiotics.
  7. Mr A told the Council he was not satisfied with its response and asked it to consider this complaint under its stage two complaints procedure. He also asked for Child X’s social worker to be changed and questioned why he had not been informed about Child X’s leg infection which required antibiotics.
  8. The Council arranged for an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person to consider Mr A’s complaint. It also said it would ask its Social Worker and Child X’s Carers to provide regular updates to him about Child X’s wellbeing.
  9. Mr A told the Council he had spoken with Child X’s GP. He said the GP had referred to the leg infection as herpes. He said he was concerned the Council had not investigated this further as herpes could also be a sexually transmitted disease.
  10. In late 2019, Mr A and the IO agreed his complaint statement which set out each part of his complaint.
  11. The Council told Mr A it found the number of messages he sent its officers to be unsustainable. It said it he should direct his correspondence to an allocated officer, who in turn would provide him with monthly updates about Child X’s wellbeing and answer any questions he may have. It also said any complaint which related to previous complaints will be added to his record, but new complaints will be addressed through its normal complaint’s procedure.
  12. Around the same time, Child X had another leg infection and saw his GP, who prescribed antibiotics for the infection again.
  13. In early 2020, Mr A complained to the Council again. He said he had not been told about Child X second leg infection.
  14. The Council shared Mr A complaints and communication with the IO for this to be included in its stage two complaints investigation.
  15. The IO completed his investigation and shared his draft report with Mr A. The final report was sent to Mr A in mid-2020.

Mr A’s complaints and Independent Officer’s findings

  1. The IO considered Mr A complaint which consisted of 15 points. These have been grouped and summarised below. Mr A said the Council:
    • wrongly investigated his stage one complaint as the investigating officer was named within the complaint;
    • failed to provide Mr A with enough advice and support to sign a Section 20 Agreement. He also said it failed to transport his friend to work as agreed.
    • inaccurately recorded Mr A had refused to sign a Section 20 Agreement, the reasons for his arrest and he had refused to provide clothes for Child X. He also said its Initial health Assessment for Child X had an incorrect Social Worker’s name;
    • failed to tell him why he could not enter the vicinity of Child X’s Carers;
    • wrongly restricted his communication with Child X during supervised contacts, prevented him from attending Child X’s school play and it failed to acknowledge he had provided notice when he was unable to attend a supervised contact session;
    • failed to contact Mr A for an arranged telephone conference in August 2019 and it had mislaid letters he had written for Child X; and
    • failed to provide up to date information about Child X’s Initial Health Assessment, Personal Education Plan, dental appointment and reasons for GP visits. He also said it failed to provide timely weekly updates.
  2. The IO investigated each of Mr A’s concerns in detail. This included considering a large number of email correspondence between Mr A and the Council’s Officers, file notes and records, GP information, statements by Council Officer’s and discussions with Mr A.
  3. The IO did not uphold 10 parts of Mr A’s complaint and provided the reasons for his view. However, the IO did find fault by the Council on some parts of Mr A’s complaint. The IO gave Mr A the opportunity to comment on his findings and recommendations.
  4. Mr A provided his comments to the IO, which was included in the IO’s final report. However, the IO’s view was unchanged. The IO gave the Council his findings and recommendations.

The Council’s decision and actions.

  1. The Council accepted the IO’s findings and recommendations. It told Mr A:
    • it had recorded the incorrect Social Worker’s details. This was due to a change in the allocated Social Worker and a short administrative delay when writing up notes;
    • it had failed to provide information to Mr A about the Initial Health Assessment for Child X in 2019, a dental treatment and a set of Care Team Minutes as agreed;
    • it had failed to tell Mr A about Child X’s GP appointment in late 2019 until a Care Team Meeting a month later. This was because Child X’s Carers delayed informing the Council;
    • its Social Worker had failed to reach Mr A on his mobile number in 2019. This was because she did not call the landline number as agreed.
  2. The Council said it agreed with the IO’s recommendations. It apologised for the faults identified and the distress this caused Mr A. It also agreed to make payment of £200 (£100 for distress, time and trouble and £100 for lost opportunity)
  3. In addition, the Council also said it would follow the IO service improvement recommendations. This included reminding its staff to record and update case records correctly and in a timely manner, including management decisions and details of related correspondence with parents.
  4. The Council says it has now completed the recommendations. It explained it has briefed its staff through team meetings and supervision. It has also worked with Child X’s Carers to ensure information about his wellbeing is shared with it in a timely manner.
  5. In early 2020, Mr A told the Council it had failed to investigate his concerns about Child X’s medical treatment in December 2019. He said Child X’s GP referred to this as herpes. Mr A believes this could therefore be due to sexual abuse. He is unhappy the Council told him this has already been considered under its stage two complaints process. So, he asked the Ombudsman to consider the matter.
  6. During my investigation of Mr A’s complaint, it has become clear the Court has received information and considered Mr A’s concerns about Child X’s medical treatment in December 2019.

Analysis

  1. Mr A’s complaint relates to the Council’s actions in 2019. His complaint is therefore late. However, the Council’s complaints process was not completed until mid-2020 and he brought his complaint to our attention within 12 months of its decision. I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to exercise my discretion and consider his complaint.

The stage two investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is not to reinvestigate Mr A’s complaint to the Council. We consider whether the was fault in the process the Council followed. When it agrees there was fault, we can also consider if the remedy provided is enough to address the injustice caused.
  2. The evidence shows the Council responded to Mr A’s complaint and discussed the concerns raised with him. When he escalated his complaint, it arranged for an Independent Officer and an Independent Person to conduct the investigation. It also arranged for the relevant staff, case records and information to be made available for the investigation.
  3. When the IO reached his view, the Council accepted the IO’s decision and recommendations. It has since actioned each of the recommendations and apologised to Mr A.
  4. I am satisfied the Council’s stage two investigation was detailed and thorough. It addressed each of Mr A’s points of complaint and gave reasons for its decision. I have therefore not found fault in how the Council handled the process or its decision.
  5. I have also considered the recommendations the IO made, and the Council agreed to. I am satisfied the personal remedies of an apology and a payment of £200 was appropriate to remedy the injustice Mr A experienced. I am also satisfied the service improvements recommendations were appropriate and have been completed by the Council.

Did the Council consider Mr A’s concerns about Child X’s medical treatments?

  1. Mr A said the Council had considered Child X’s first medical treatment, but it had not considered the medical treatment in late 2019. He said this was not in its decision and the concerns arose after he had made his complaint.
  2. The IO’s final report which was shared with Mr A shows the medical incident in late 2019 was considered. The IO found the Council had failed to tell him about the GP visit because Child X’s Carers had delayed informing the Council. Mr A was therefore not aware of the infection and medical treatment until a month later. However, the IO and the Council did not find any reason to substantiate concerns the herpes infection was due to sexual abuse. In addition, Child X’s GP also did not raise any such concerns.
  3. I understand Mr A’s concerns about Child X’s medical treatments in mid-2019 and late 2019. However, I am satisfied the IO and the Council has properly considered and responded to Mr A concerns.
  4. In addition, as a court has now considered information relating to Mr A concerns about the medical treatment and the sharing of information, I cannot consider this matter further.

Restriction of services and refusal to respond to Mr A’s complaints

  1. The Council restricted Mr A’s access and communication with the Council in late 2019. It told Mr A this was due to his excessive contact with Council Officers. It arranged for an Officer to be his delegated contact for all correspondence. This is in line with the Council’s Unreasonable Behaviour towards Officers Policy. It is therefore not at fault for enforcing its Policy.
  2. In addition, the Council has since provided evidence it has reviewed the restrictions imposed on Mr A and notified him of its decision to keep this in place. I have therefore found no fault in the Council’s handing of the restrictions it has imposed on Mr A. Also, I am satisfied this has not impacted on his ability to communicate with the Council as he continues to have a delegated contact.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has already remedied the injustice caused to Mr A. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated the parts of Mr A’s complaint which has been considered by the Court. This includes the Council’s handling of:
    • Mr A’s visitation rights, communication, gifts and letters with Child X;
    • the Non-Molestation Order and Mr A access to and updates from Child X’s School;
    • any complaints made by Mr A which should be considered by the Court which made the Care Order for Child X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings