Summary: Mr X complains that the Council’s investigation into a disclosure by his daughter was inadequate and that a social worker made a false statement about him to his daughter’s mother. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains that the Council’s investigation into a disclosure made by his daughter in a contact centre was inadequate and that it falsified an account by the contact supervisor who witnessed the disclosure. He seeks compensation for himself and his daughter and for measures to be put in place to ensure this does not happen again
2. Mr X also complains that a social worker wrongly advised his daughter’s mother, a safeguarding committee and the police that he had threatened to go to the mother’s address. He says that this was false and requests that the social worker inform all relevant parties that this was false and provide 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. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered information provided by Mr X and by the Council. I have shared this draft statement with Mr X and the Council and will consider any comments they make before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X has a young daughter, J, who is now aged four. In 2019 Mr X and J’s mother, Ms Y, separated. After the separation Ms Y obtained a non-molestation order from a court. This order prevented Mr X from contacting Ms Y. J was cared for at times by her maternal grandparents while Mr X and Ms Y entered into private court proceedings to decide arrangements for J’s contact and care.
8. In 2020 a third-party professional contacted the Council with concerns about Mr X’s approach to the grandparents, which resulted in the Council putting a safety plan in place for Ms Y and her family.
9. During late 2020 and early 2021 Mr X contacted the Council several times with non-specific concerns about the grandparents’ care of J and about the grandmother’s mental health. He also asked multiple times for the Council to establish and share J’s whereabouts and requested checks on Ms Y’s mental health. The Council advised Mr X to seek legal advice.
10. In May 2021, following a fact-finding hearing in court, a Prohibited Steps Order was put in place preventing Mr X from removing his daughter from the care of her grandmother. The court made no findings in relation to allegations Mr X made about Ms Y’s family.
11. Shortly afterwards, following a supervised contact session with J, Mr X raised concerns about J’s welfare with the Council. He said J had made a comment during contact that suggested her grandmother gave her soapy water to drink when she was bossy.
12. The contact supervisor’s report stated that J had told her father that if she is called “bossy boots” she is made to drink something “sour”. The report stated Mr X asked if it was soapy and J said yes and that after the session Mr X had expressed concerns J had been made to drink soapy water. He suggested J’s grandmother was responsible although the record showed J had not named her grandmother or anyone else as responsible.
13. At the same time Mr X told the Council he was concerned J was at risk from Ms Y’s relative who was staying at the family home. Mr X said he felt this needed immediate intervention. The Council advised him to call the police, which he did. The police visited J at home two days later and reported no concerns.
14. Mr X was unhappy with the police response. He complained to the Council that J’s disclosure over the drink had not been properly investigated. Mr X said he believed that J had been given washing up liquid to drink. He said the contact supervisor had explored J’s disclosure and that she also believed this.
15. In June 2021 following further calls from Mr X a social worker looked into his concerns. The social worker spoke to the contact supervisor and then Mr X about what J had said and the context for her remarks. The contact supervisor’s account to the social worker was different from that in her report and also differed from Mr X’s account. The social worker spoke to the supervisor again and also spoke to Ms Y.
16. The enquiry concluded that no further action should be taken as there was no evidence J was at risk or that she had been made to drink something unpleasant as a punishment for being bossy. The social worker’s report explains how she reached this conclusion.
17. Mr X complained that the social worker had falsified the contact supervisor’s account. His complaint was considered by an investigator at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process but not upheld. The Council’s letter to Mr X informing him of this decision reflected on the discrepancies between the contact supervisor’s contemporaneous written account of the contact and her recollection when interviewed. The letter said the Council would circulate a reminder to contact centres stressing the importance of accurate recording and swift reporting of concerns.
18. After Mr X raised further concerns a social worker decided to look further into Ms Y and her relatives’ emotional and mental health. She also further considered Mr X’s concern that J was being neglected. This enquiry involved checks with CAFCASS and J’s nursery. The social worker spoke to Ms Y’s relative. The enquiry uncovered no concerns about J’s care by her mother or grandparents.
19. With regards to Mr X’s complaint about the social worker’s remarks, the Council has provided me with the social worker’s records of her conversation with Mr X and her subsequent conversation with Ms Y. The notes record Mr X as stating, during a conversation in July 2021, that if the Council did not check on his daughter he would “go and sort it out himself”. The notes state the social worker then warned Ms Y that Mr X had made this threat. Mr X denies having made the comment recorded in the notes.

Analysis

20. The Council properly investigated the disclosure at the contact centre and found no evidence to justify further action. There is no evidence that the social worker falsified the contact supervisor’s account. I cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong simply because Mr X disagrees with it. I must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
21. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint at Stage 2 was an example of good practice: despite the fact the complaint was not upheld the Council reflected on Mr X’s concerns and the discrepancy that had arisen and reminded contact supervisors of their responsibilities to ensure accurate recording.
22. With regards to the social worker’s warning to Ms Y it is not possible to know exactly Mr X said. This is because the social worker and Mr X have differing recollections of the conversation. However, on the balance of probabilities I find that Mr X said something that could be interpreted as a threat to approach Ms Y or J. Based on the contextual information provided by the Council and the existence of the non-molestation order, the social worker was justified in issuing a warning about this.
23. In response to my draft decision Mr X advised me that the Council confirmed during a conference call that he had not threatened to visit his ex-partner. However the Council’s records of the call do not contain this confirmation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman