Summary: Mr X complained about flaws in how the Council investigated his complaint under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about flaws in the Council’s handing of his complaint under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. He said the Council relied on inaccurate case records and the investigating officer did not interview the social worker responsible for supervising his son, Y’s case. He said the Council failed to properly consider information that showed he was a victim of domestic abuse and instead presented him as a perpetrator of abuse against his ex-partner.
2. Mr X said the Council had treated his ex-partner more favourably to him. He said the Council’s actions and bias in its assessment of him meant it had presented inaccurate information to the Court. He said that had resulted in the Court placing Y into care.
3. Mr X wants Y to live with him and to have his views reflected within Y’s assessments.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)
6. 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

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X.
8. I read the Council’s stage two investigation report, its addendum report and considered the stage three panel’s findings.
9. I referred to the statutory guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. The law 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 Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) - 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. This involves consideration by an independent review panel which may make further recommendations.
12. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Background

13. Y was born in 2016. Mr X is separated from Y’s mother, Ms Z. In 2016 and 2017, the Police made safeguarding referrals for Y to the Council because of concerns about domestic abuse by Mr X against Ms Z. In June 2018 the Council placed Y on a Child Protection Plan as it had ongoing concerns the relationship between Mr X and Ms Z was putting Y at risk of harm. Y remained on a Child Protection Plan for the next two years.
14. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2020. At this time, the family court were considering the care arrangements for Y through private proceedings initiated by Mr X. In July 2020, the Court decided to place Y on an Interim Care Order and into the care of the Council. Following a final hearing in August 2021, the Court decided that Y should remain in the care of the Council.

Mr X’s complaint

15. Mr X initially complained that the Council had failed to listen to Y’s voice as part of its assessment process, including where he wanted to live. The Council accepted the complaint under the statutory complaint’s procedure. The Council wrote to Mr X and explained the Court would make any long-term decisions about Y’s living arrangements. However, it said it would ask Y’s school to complete further wishes and feelings work with him.
16. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and the Council escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the statutory complaint’s procedure. The Council allocated an investigating officer (IO) and independent person (IP). Mr X provided an overview of his complaints to the Council at the start of September 2020. That included 109 points of complaint. The IO and IP met with Mr X twice to agree the scope of the investigation.
17. Following that, they agreed to investigate eleven areas of complaint, covering the period of April 2019 to April 2020.

The stage 2 investigation

18. The stage 2 report shows the IO reviewed Y’s and Mr X’s electronic case records and spoke to relevant staff. The IO did not speak to the supervising social worker as they were off work because of illness.
19. The stage 2 investigation partially upheld three areas of complaint. These were:
1. The Council did not update Y’s assessment after it learnt of a domestic abuse incident where Y’s mother assaulted Mr X.
2. The Council’s case recording of Y was not full and factually detailed.
3. The Council had not fully described or analysed Mr X’s relationship with Y.
20. It did not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Y’s most recent assessment included inaccurate information. That was because the completed assessment was outside of the timeframe of the investigation.
21. The Council accepted the stage 2 investigation and recommendations. It wrote to Mr X and apologised for the faults set out above. It also invited Mr X to provide a written summary of what he believed to be incorrect information within Y’s assessment and care records.
22. It said as part of the Council’s Service Improvement Plan, it was training staff about relationship-based work with families, which must always include relationships with fathers. It said the training was also aimed at improving the content and analysis of assessments to ensure the voice of the child was heard.

The stage 3 panel

23. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation and asked the Council to consider his complaint under stage 3. He provided a large amount of information that he wanted the stage 3 panel to consider. The stage 3 panel asked the IO and IP to explain if it had considered this information as part of its stage 2 investigation. They provided a report of the evidence considered and why some information- such as the content of a section 37 Court report was not considered.
24. The stage 3 panel initially met twice in February 2021. Following that, it asked the IO and IP to investigate parts of Mr X’s complaint further as the stage 2 report had not provided sufficient detail to evidence its findings.
25. The IO provided a further addendum report. In that, they explained that they had limited the amount of information included in the stage 2 report because of possible risks to Ms Z’s safety, staff members and to ensure the investigation was balanced and not weighted by Mr X’s allegations against Ms Z.
26. The addendum report set out how the IO and IP had considered each of Mr X’s initial 109 complaints and decided whether to include these as part of the investigation. It also provided further evidence and analysis of how it considered the complaints it had not upheld. This included Mr X’s complaints:
1. The Council’s assessment of Y was not sufficiently balanced in relation to both parents parenting skills and lifestyle.
2. The Council had not given enough consideration to Y’s wishes and feelings.
3. The Council did not properly consider Mr X’s reports that Ms Z had made false allegations about him, and it did not properly substantiate her allegations.
4. The Council did not take appropriate safeguarding action after being told Y had contact with a person who may pose a risk to him.
27. Following a further review meeting, the stage 3 panel:
• Partially upheld complaint d). It said although Y’s assessment was balanced in respect of both parents, there was insufficient analysis of both parents parenting ability and lifestyle. It also noted the Council had failed to update Y’s assessment since 2018 despite Y being on a Child Protection Plan. Because of that, it changed the stage 2 finding on complaint a) from partially upheld to fully upheld.
• It upheld complaint e), which the stage 2 investigation had not upheld. It linked this finding to its findings on complaints a) and complaint d). It said the lack of an updated assessment meant there was an absence of understanding Y’s experiences, wishes and feelings.
• It fully upheld complaint c) because it said the review panel had not heard any evidence of effective analysis of the relationship between Mr X and Y informing the plans for Y.
28. The panel said it could not review complaint f) because the IO and IP did not share all the information considered to make their decision. The IO and IP stated if they shared the details of Ms Z’s allegations it could put Ms Z and staff members at risk. The IO and IP confirmed in the addendum report that the case records showed the Council had shared concerns about domestic abuse with partner agencies; and that the Council’s decision making was informed by risk assessments and multi-agency meetings.
29. The panel did not uphold Mr X’s linked complaints that the Council had assessed him as a perpetrator of domestic abuse without evidence and exploration of this judgement; and that the Council had failed to properly consider him as a victim of domestic abuse and not provided support for him. It considered information provided by the IO, IP and relevant staff in making this decision.
30. The panel found no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns Mr X made.
31. The panel recommended a financial remedy of £1000 for Y as it found the lack of an updated assessment being completed had caused him a personal injustice. The financial remedy was informed by his young age, that he was on a Child Protection Plan and the concerns about the parental relationship.
32. The panel also recommended a £300 financial remedy to Mr X to recognise the time and trouble on complaining on his behalf, and to reflect that he had to attend three panel meetings.

My findings

33. Mr X raised multiple concerns to the Ombudsman which he feels evidences the Council was biased in its treatment of him which has ultimately affected the Court’s decision to place Y into care. We cannot investigate what happens in court as that is outside of our jurisdiction. Additionally, we would not normally reinvestigate a complaint that has been through the Children’s Statutory Complaint procedure unless there was evidence of fault in how that investigation were carried out.
34. The stage 2 report and addendum report show the IO and IP met with Mr X to consider his complaint and agree the scope of the investigation. They also provided a rationale why some parts of the complaint and evidence he provided were outside the scope of the investigation. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s complaints and what it would investigate. The Council was not at fault.
35. Mr X said the Council’s stage 2 investigation was flawed as it did not interview the social worker supervising Y. As the social worker was off work, they were not available for interview. The IO did review case records and speak to other relevant staff involved in Y’s case management. I am satisfied it considered all available information when investigating the complaint. The Council was not at fault.
36. Mr X said the investigation did not properly consider bias in the Council’s case records. He referred to information contained within the Council’s section 37 report for Court; that the Council had not included information in Y’s case records, and that it had incorrectly recorded the dates of visits. He alleged the Council had falsified records.
37. The IO and IP did not investigate the content of the section 37 court report as that is outside the remit of the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. The Council has accepted that there were inaccuracies in the case records (complaint b). It has said that Mr X can provide it a summary of what he believes is incorrect and that will be added to Y’s case file.
38. Further to the above, Mr X has confirmed he told the Court about inaccuracies in the Council’s case recording and that it falsified documents at the final court hearing. As it has been considered by the Court it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction therefore, I cannot investigate it further.
39. In relation to bias, the investigation specifically considered this as part of Y’s Children’s Social Care assessment. Although the investigation found the assessment was not updated, did not contain Y’s wishes and feelings or a full analysis of how his parents relationship affected him, it did not identify evidence of bias in the assessment. I have reviewed extracts of the assessment contained within the stage two report and am satisfied that the Council’s investigation properly considered the assessment when making its finding.
40. Mr X said the Council’s investigation failed to consider all relevant information about him as a victim of domestic abuse. He provided Police records that show he made reports of being assaulted. He said the stage two investigation report and stage three panel incorrectly stated the number of multi-agency meetings held to discuss the domestic abuse concerns between him and Ms Z.
41. The stage 2 report confirms the Council’s case records evidence that Mr X was both a perpetrator and victim of domestic abuse. It refers to an assault against Mr X from Ms Z. It notes that both Mr X and Ms Z at some point had non-molestation orders against one another and specifically refers to Mr X reporting his own concerns about domestic abuse to the Police. I am satisfied the Council’s investigation did have full access to information about Mr X as a potential victim when investigating his complaint.
42. Although Mr X indicates a discrepancy about the number of multi-agency meetings held, I do not consider that is evidence the investigation was flawed. The information provided in the stage two report and chronology shows the Council’s assessment of Mr X as a perpetrator of domestic abuse was not solely based on the number of multi-agency meetings held.
43. Part of the stage 3 panel’s role is to consider the adequacy of the stage 2 investigation and analyse any further information provided. The panel considered Mr X’s views and reviewed the stage 2 investigation. It asked the IO and IP to complete further investigations and provide an addendum report. After considering all the information it revised the findings to fully uphold two complaints that had been partially upheld and upheld one further complaint. I am satisfied that the stage three panel independently reviewed Mr X’s complaint
44. The stage 3 panel did not review Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly investigate Ms Z’s allegations against him. It did not do this because the IO and IP could not provide all the evidence they considered as part of their investigation due to concerns about what information they could share with Mr X, and potential risks to Ms Z and staff members.
45. I have considered whether the stage 3 panel’s inability to complete its statutory function in reviewing this part of Mr X’s complaint requires further investigation by the Ombudsman. However, I am satisfied from reviewing the stage 2 addendum report that the IO and IP fully considered the case records and provided a sound rationale for why they could not disclose Ms Z’s allegations in detail. The addendum report notes that not all Ms Z’s concerns were proven, but these would be considerred as evidence in Court.
46. Mr X has since confirmed that Ms Z admitted that not all her allegations were true in Court. Therefore, there is nothing to be gained from investigating this complaint further, and it is outside our jurisdiction as it has now been considered within Court.
47. The stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel found fault in the Council’s practices. The Council had already implemented a Service Improvement Plan to address quality in its assessments and practice, therefore I am satisfied that further service improvement recommendations are not needed.
48. The Council has offered a financial remedy of £1000 to Y for the injustice caused by its failing to complete an updated assessments that analysed risk and his lived experiences. It has also offered a remedy of £300 to Mr X for his time and trouble. These are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The Council was not at fault in how it completed an investigation into Mr X’s complaints under the Children’s Statutory Complaint’s procedure. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman