Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to investigate allegations she made against her family when she was a child and disclosed information to her family against her wishes. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains that the Council:
1. disclosed information about her sexual assault to her family when she had specifically asked that it not be disclosed. She says the social worker agreed not to disclose and then informed her family the following day; and
2. failed to investigate her allegations of verbal, physical and financial abuse by her family (mainly her mother, but she was also physically assaulted by her half-brother) and failed to support her in moving away from her family. She says no formal assessment of her complaint of abuse was carried out as social workers did not believe her.
2. Miss X says she approached refuges and shelters for accommodation but was denied access as they needed the Council’s approval which it denied. She seeks an apology and compensation.

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 Miss X. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and the Council and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint 1: Disclosure of sexual assault to family

6. Miss X was referred to the Council’s children’s social care team in early 2017 by a youth worker, when she was 16. After receiving the referral, a social worker visited Miss X. Miss X says she told the social worker she had been sexually assaulted and asked her not to tell her parents. She says that despite this request the Council notified the family of the sexual assault. Miss X says she had experienced emotional abuse at home and this became worse after the social worker’s disclosure to her family.
7. The Council has provided a copy of the 2017 referral record, which states that Miss X was a victim of sexual assault. It says she had informed her family of this but their response resulted in her telling them it was a lie. The referral also states Miss X felt she was mentally unwell and that her mother, Mrs X, had threatened to make her leave the family home if she engaged in therapy.
8. In response to the referral the Council opened a child and family assessment. This is an investigation designed to find out whether Miss X was at risk of harm and ensure she received appropriate support. A social worker made a telephone call to Miss X. A note of the call records Miss X said that she did not want her mother to know about social care’s involvement. The social worker said she would speak to Miss X’s school to plan a way forward, but that Mrs X would need to know about social care’s involvement.
9. The social worker then met with Miss X at school. The notes of the meeting show the school said it would contact Mrs X about Miss X’s poor attendance and tell her that children’s services were involved. Miss X advised she had concerns about the emotional impact on her as her mother was averse to mental health and children’s services. She was reassured that her mother would be spoken to about this and advised to call 999 or call the social worker if necessary.
10. The social worker met with Mrs X who agreed to support Miss X’s engagement in therapy. There is no evidence from the record of this meeting that the social worker mentioned Miss X’s sexual assault to Mrs X.
11. The social worker then had a further meeting with Miss X, her mother, sister and members of the school. There is no record that the sexual assault was discussed. The outcome of the meeting was that Mrs X agreed to register Miss X at a GP practice and for her to receive counselling. Miss X was offered a mentor. She is recorded as saying she was happy with the plan. The social worker completed her assessment, concluding that the case would be managed by the school in future, with continued monitoring and meetings as necessary.
12. Miss X went missing twice in 2017 and on each occasion the police took Miss X to hospital. The Council has told it me it has seen evidence health staff discussed Miss X’s sexual assault with her family.

Analysis

13. There is no evidence in the records provided to me that the Council disclosed Miss X’s sexual assault to her mother against her wishes. I will not investigate this complaint further as I do not think I could establish Miss X had suffered injustice even if fault could be found. This is because there is evidence the family may have learned of the assault through other sources.

Complaint 2: Failure to act on abuse by family

14. Miss X told me that her family members failed to provide her with money for food, and were verbally and physically abusive, refusing to wash her clothes and preventing her from keeping clean. She told me the Council did not carry out a formal assessment of her family situation.
15. As described above, the Council did complete an assessment in early July 2017. Miss X later moved to stay with a cousin in a different Council area, Council 2. In October 2017 the Council’s records show it started another child and family assessment following a referral from a health practitioner about Miss X. The Council’s report stated Miss X was back in the Council area, and that she had disclosed that she was having sex with an older male for money and said she was doing this so that she could leave the area. She said this was because she felt she was at risk from a male.
16. Miss X also presented as homeless to the Council in the latter half of 2017. However, the Council’s records show it decided that she was not homeless as Mrs X wished her to remain in the family home and was prepared to support her.
17. The Council’s assessment completed in January 2018. It noted the family was taking part in family therapy through the NHS mental health services and that Miss X’s relationship with her mother had “recently been more positive”. It said that on both occasions the social worker met Miss X she was dressed in clean clothes and that Miss X said she was able to care for herself. It also said Mrs X reported providing Miss X with appropriate food and clothing and appeared very supportive. Mrs X stated that she did not want Miss X to leave home.
18. The report also noted that Miss X felt let down and unsupported by her mother and sister but did not record any allegation of abuse. The report found Mrs X was struggling to support her daughter. It recommended referral to an early intervention team which Mrs and Miss X said they would engage with.
19. In early February Miss X left the family home and began living in a different Council area, Council 2. In March, two months after the child and family assessment was closed, the Council learned of this from a health practitioner who raised concern Miss X was no longer living in the family home or engaging with services. The record of this referral states that the Early Intervention Team had not yet allocated Miss X to a social worker as it felt she was too high risk. It also said that no one could say if Miss X’s risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE) had been assessed or if an intervention had been identified and that the case had been closed to social care.
20. The Council told me the practitioner had been mistaken and that she did not have access to the Council’s files. It pointed out that the January 2018 assessment had included an assessment of CSE risk and reflected the fact that the police, independent sexual violence advocate and mental health services were engaging with Miss X.
21. In April 2018 a health practitioner advised the Council to assess Miss X’s living situation. The Council contacted Mrs X who confirmed Miss X was living with a church pastor and his wife in their home in the Council 2 area and that she had visited her daughter there. Mrs X said she had regular contact with her daughter and took her out to eat on occasions. Miss X refused to speak to the Council and Mrs X refused to pass Miss X’s address to the Council. The Council closed the case as Miss X was now living outside the Council area and it felt there were no safeguarding issues that justified further action.
22. Council 2 later contacted the Council for information about Miss X as she had presented as homeless to Council 2. Council 2 placed her in temporary accommodation and began a new child and family assessment. The Council had no further interaction with Miss X’s case.
23. Miss X complained to the Council in 2019 about its failure to safeguard her. It did not uphold her complaints. In its Stage 2 response the Council noted that it was unable to obtain further information from some of the employees involved with Miss X as they had left the Council. The Council accepted delay in its complaint handling and offered Miss X £300 to remedy this. Miss X then came to us.

Analysis

24. The Council’s records show it did assess Miss X’s family situation in 2017 and 2018. The assessments and other records show Miss X felt let down and unsupported by her family. However there are no records that she made allegations of familial abuse.
25. The Council’s Stage 1 complaint investigation states: “There is evidence on the file of [Miss X’s} views, wishes and feelings being sought throughout the Local Authority’s interventions with her.”
26. I agree with this summary. In my view, had Miss X made an allegation of verbal, physical or financial abuse by her family during her interactions with the Council or other agencies, this would have been likely to have been recorded.

I have not seen evidence of the Council’s interactions with the refuges and shelters Miss X approached to provide accommodation. The evidence I have seen to date indicates the Council assessed in 2017 that Miss X was not homeless as she was able to live at her home. Its assessment report of January 2018 found that Miss X was living at home and her relationship with Mrs X was improving.

27. In my view the Council’s offer of £300 was an appropriate remedy for the delays in its complaints handling.
28. There is no fault by the Council in respect of complaints a) and b) as set out above. In my draft decision I found fault, based on the practitioner’s comments on the record of March 2018, in the Council’s actions with respect to Miss X’s risk of CSE child sexual exploitation. However, the Council has explained that the practitioner was mistaken. It has provided evidence that Miss X’s risk of CSE was assessed. Miss X moved to a different Council area a short time after the Council’s assessment was concluded.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation with a finding that the Council is not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman