Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 013 188)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was biased against him as it believed his ex-wife’s allegations that he had abused his children. We will not reinvestigate Mr X’s complaint as it has been properly considered through the statutory complaints process. We find the Council is at fault as it did not fully implement the recommendations of the review panel which considered Mr X’s complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints process

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council was biased against him as it believed his former wife’s allegations that he had sexually abused his daughter and step daughter without question.
  2. Mr X also complains the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint through the children’s services statutory complaints procedure.
  3. Mr X considers the Council’s bias caused him to lose his home, separated him from his children which caused significant distress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
  • there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
  • any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
  1. 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. I have:
  • Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
  • Considered the reports and findings of the investigation into Mr X’s complaint at stages two and three and the adjudications.
  • Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision on this complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedure

  1. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
  2. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
  3. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
  4. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.

The Ombudsman’s approach

  1. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

What happened

  1. Mr X was married to Ms Y and has two children. In 2018 the police made referrals to children’s services regarding domestic disputes between Mr X and Ms Y. Mr X also made a referral to children’s services. Ms Y raised concerns that Mr X had been sexually inappropriate to his daughter and step daughter.
  2. Mr X met with a social worker to discuss his concerns and to dispute the allegations made by Ms Y. Mr X considered the social worker did not record his concerns about Ms Y’s allegations.
  3. In September 2018 Mr X made a complaint to the Council about the conduct of the social worker. His complaints included that he had not received any support as a victim of domestic violence and that he was concerned the social worker had not accurately recorded his comments when interviewing him and ignoring the evidence. Mr X said he felt like he was being treated as a perpetrator and being ignored. The Council responded to Mr X but did not uphold his complaint.
  4. The Council carried out a child and family assessment to determine if the children were at risk of significant harm or what support the children required. The Council decided the children were children in need.
  5. In December 2018 Mr X made a further complaint which included his concerns about the accuracy of the child and family assessment. Mr X considered the Council was portraying him as the perpetrator.
  6. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. In late January 2019 Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
  7. In June 2019 the Council appointed an independent investigator and independent person to investigate Mr X’s complaint at stage two. Mr X agreed a statement of complaint in September 2019. He raised seven complaints. These included complaints that the social workers had not remain child focused and believed Ms Y’s version of events without scrutiny or curiosity, inaccurate recording of Mr X’s interview with the social worker where Mr X raised his concerns about the allegation and concerns about the content of the child and family assessment.
  8. The independent investigator and independent person issued their reports in late January and February 2020. The independent investigator and independent person partially upheld Mr X’s complaint that social workers had believed Ms Y’s version of events without scrutiny. They considered social workers should have adopted a more questioning approach to Ms Y’s allegations. The independent investigator noted the social worker’s record of her interview with Mr X did not correspond with his recollection of the interview. The only evidence of the interview was the social worker’s record so it was not possible to conclude whether Mr X’s recollection was correct. The independent investigator and independent person concluded there was insufficient evidence to reach a decision. The independent investigator and independent person did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the child and family assessment.
  9. A senior council officer carried out the adjudication of Mr X’s complaint at stage two. They agreed with the findings of the independent investigator and independent person regarding Mr X’s complaints about accepting Ms Y’s allegations, the accuracy of the interview record and the child and family assessment. The adjudicating officer also apologised for the delays in carrying out the stage two investigation. The officer offered a payment of £500 to Mr X to reflect the delay and Mr X’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The officer said the Council would also address learning outcomes from the complaint with relevant teams.
  10. Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to stage three of the complaints procedure in March 2020 as he disagreed with a number of findings.
  11. In late September 2021, the review panel considered Mr X’s complaint. The review panel partially upheld Mr Y’s complaint about social workers accepting Ms Y’s allegations without question and considered the investigation had been too influenced by Ms Y. The panel considered there was insufficient evidence to reach a finding on whether the social worker had inaccurately recorded her interview with Mr X. The panel partially upheld Mr X’s complaint about the child and family assessment as it considered the investigation had been influenced by Ms Y’s position. The panel recommended the Council apologise to Mr X for the delay in arranging the stage three panel and for the emotional and financial distress caused to Mr X. The panel also recommended that any learning points be sent to staff and Mr X should be given the opportunity to add his observations to his children’s files.
  12. The panel recommended a payment of £900 to Mr X for the distress and delay in arranging the review panel hearing and recommended an apology for the delay and for the emotional and financial distress caused to him.
  13. The adjudicating officer agreed with the panel’s findings. She noted Mr X had submitted a right to rectification request under the General Data Protection Regulations so he could submit his observations on the children’s files. The adjudicating officer offered a payment of £700 for the delays in the complaints process including the delay in arranging the review panel hearing. The officer said she was offering £700 rather than £900 recommended by the review panel as the distress caused to Mr X was not wholly attributable to the Council but also due to the family breakdown. The officer also said Mr X’s financial costs were not due to fault by the Council.
  14. Mr X remains unhappy as he considers the statutory complaints process did not address his complaint about the Council failing to check if Ms Y’s allegations against him were valid. He considers the Council’s failure to challenge Ms Y led to him being separated from his children which caused significant distress to him and his children. He also considers it empowered Ms Y to take private legal proceedings against him so he incurred legal costs.

Analysis

  1. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint at all stages of the statutory complaints procedure which is an independent and detailed process. We will only reinvestigate the complaint if there is evidence of significant flaws in how the complaint was considered through the statutory process. There is no evidence of fault in how Mr X’s complaint was considered. The Council followed the correct process. The reports of the independent investigator and independent person are thorough and the review panel considered Mr X’s disagreement with the stage two reports. I therefore do not consider I have grounds to reinvestigate Mr X’s complaint and I could not add any value in doing so.
  2. Although I am not reinvestigating Mr X’s complaint, I can consider if the remedy offered following the stage three adjudication is proportionate and appropriate. In doing so I must consider the injustice caused to Mr X by the faults identified by the statutory investigation. Mr X considers the Council’s failure to challenge Ms Y’s allegations led to her taking private legal proceeding and separating him from his children. He has provided a case record by the Council which refers to its intervention having influenced he and Ms Y to separate and empowering Ms Y. I acknowledge the legal process caused significant distress and expense to Mr X. But I cannot say this distress and expense flows from the faults by the Council. Ms Y had her own independent advice and she is responsible for her own actions in taking the legal proceedings. This cannot be attributed to the faults by the Council.
  3. The Council’s failure to question Ms Y’s allegations and allow her position to heavily influence the investigation caused distress to Mr X as he felt the Council was not listening to him. It also gave him the impression the Council was biased against him. Mr X was also caused some distress and put to avoidable time and trouble by the significant delays in progressing his complaint.
  4. The review panel recommended £900 but the Council proposed this be reduced to £700. I consider the remedy of £700 is proportionate to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X by the failure to challenge Ms Y’s allegations and the avoidable time and trouble caused by the delays in considering Mr X’s complaints. The payment is also in line with our guidance on remedies.
  5. I find the Council has only partially implemented the recommendations of the review panel. The Council, in its stage 3 adjudication letter said the learning points from Mr X’s complaint would be shared across the service so it appears to have implemented this recommendation. The review panel also recommended the Council apologise for distress caused in addition to the apology for the delay in the complaints process. The review panel does not specify what fault the apology is for. But, on balance, I consider the recommended apology was for the distress caused by the Council in failing to challenge Ms Y’s allegations and allowing the assessment to be influenced by them as this was unremedied. Furthermore, it makes no sense for the review panel to ask the Council to apologise for matters beyond its control. The Council should therefore have apologised to Mr X for the distress caused by the failure to challenge Ms Y’s allegations and allowing the assessment to be heavily influenced by them.
  6. Mr X has made a request for right of rectification under the General Data Protection Regulations after the review panel report was issued. I therefore do not consider the Council to be at fault for expecting Mr X to complete the right to rectification process rather than implementing the recommendation of review panel. Mr X also has the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner if he disagrees with the outcome of his right to rectification request.
  7. The Council significantly delayed in considering Mr X’s complaint through the statutory complaints process and I note some delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to my draft decision the Council has said it has updated its procedures and officers had undertaken training. I am therefore satisfied the Council does not need to review its procedures in response to the delays which occurred in this case.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. That the Council:
      1. Sends a written apology to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused to him by the Council’s failure to challenge Ms Y’s allegations against him and allowing her allegations to heavily influence the child and family assessment.
      2. Makes a payment of £700 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and avoidable time and trouble caused to him by the failure to be more questioning of Ms Y’s allegations against Mr X, allowing the child and family assessment to be influenced by her position and by the significant delays in dealing with Mr X’s complaint.
      3. Provides evidence to show the Council has issued learning points from this complaint to the relevant teams.
  2. The Council should take the action at a) to c) within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I will not reinvestigate Mr X’s complaint as it has been properly considered through the statutory complaints process. The Council is at fault as it did not fully implement the recommendations of the review panel which considered Mr X’s complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints process.

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