Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly investigate or keep him updated, and discriminated against him, when he reported child protection concerns about his child. There was fault in how the Council made its enquiries, communicated with Mr X, and handled his complaint about this. This resulted in avoidable distress and time and trouble for Mr X for which the Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, review its assessment, and place a note on its file(s). It also agreed to review relevant procedures and issue reminders to its staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly investigate or keep him updated when he reported child protection concerns in September 2021 about his child, C, and took too long to respond when he complained about this. He also said the Council did not take equal accounts from both parents during its investigation and so discriminated against him as the father of C. Mr X was concerned the Council’s actions left C at risk of harm and said this caused upset and distress to both him and C. He wanted the Council to:
• reopen its investigation with a different social worker, speak to Mr X about his concerns, and ensure a suitably qualified professional speaks to and assesses C on their own;
• email its investigation report to Mr X, and;
• review its procedures and dismiss the staff involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered:
• information provided by Mr X;
• documentation and comments from the Council;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Child protection and Section 47 enquiries

8. Where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. It should initiate such enquiries where there are concerns about abuse or neglect. These enquiries are often called ‘Section 47 enquiries’. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. The Council’s policy for Referral, Investigation and Assessment says it should follow the following process when it decides it should act on a referral made to its Careline service.
• Background checks – the referral is allocated to a social worker in Careline to undertake background checks. They should compile a chronology of any previous concerns about the child and contact the referrer to clarify the information submitted. They should also contact the child’s parent(s) unless it is felt this would increase the risk to the child, and contact other agencies who may know the child such as their school or GP.
• Initial recommendation – the social worker should assess the nature and level of harm the child may be facing and make a recommendation about whether further social work intervention is needed. They may recommend no further action, further intervention, or signposting to another service.
• Manager review – a manager reviews the recommendation made by the Careline social worker. The manager can decide to close the case in Careline if no further action is needed, signpost to another service, allocate the case to the relevant area’s social work team for a ‘single assessment’, or return the case to the Careline social worker for further work.
10. The Council’s policy for single assessments (including section 47 enquiries) defines a single assessment as an “in-depth assessment which addresses the central or most important aspects of the needs of a child and the capacity of his or her parents or carers to respond appropriately to these needs within the wider family and community context”. The policy says:
• single assessments should be completed within 45 working days. Where a Section 47 enquiry is conducted as part of a single assessment, the Section 47 enquiry must be completed within 15 working days;
• the social worker must always see and communicate with the child alone during a Section 47 enquiry, unless it is against the child’s interests to do so. Dates of meetings with the child should be recorded and if the child was not seen alone the record should show who was present and why;
• the outcome of a single assessment could be no further action, further specialist assessment, creation of a ‘Child in Need Plan’ with services provided to the child, referral to a ‘Child Protection Conference’ possibly leading to a ‘Child Protection Plan’, or, a decision that the child should be ‘Looked After’ by the Council.
• when the single assessment is complete the child’s parent(s) should be given a copy of the assessment record unless to do so would place the child at risk. The social worker should also seek and record the views of the child and their parent(s) about the single assessment.
11. The Government publishes statutory guidance which councils must have regard to when making Section 47 enquiries. Councils should not depart from statutory guidance unless they have clear, documented reasons for doing so. The statutory guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children 2018’, says:
• when a council receives a referral, it should ensure a social worker acknowledges receipt within one working day;
• once a council has accepted a referral, the allocated social worker should clarify with the referrer the nature of the concerns and how and why they have arisen. They should also make clear to children and families how any assessment will be carried out and when they can expect a decision on next steps;
• every assessment must be informed by the views of the child as well as the family. The allocated social worker should interview the child and family members, separately and together as appropriate. The child’s wishes and feelings must be sought and discussions with the child should be conducted in a way that minimises distress to them and maximises the likelihood they will provide accurate and complete information, avoiding leading or suggestive questions. Where possible, children should be seen alone;
• from the point of referral, the assessment should take no longer than 45 working days and if it takes longer than this the social worker should record the reasons;
• the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) do not prevent the sharing of information for the purposes of keeping children safe. Councils should set out clearly their processes and the principles for sharing information about child safeguarding. This should include how information will be shared within their own organisation and with others who may be involved in a child’s life; and
• the social worker should inform the family of their decisions in writing and inform the referrer of what action has been or will be taken.

Conduct of individual social workers

12. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.

The Equality Act

13. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
14. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.
15. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010.
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
16. The broad purpose of the public sector equality duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

The Council’s complaints procedure

17. The Council’s complaints procedure says:
• if proposing to resolve the complaint through early resolution the Council will make sure the complainant is happy with the action it has taken or proposes to take;
• if not resolving via early resolution, the Council will issue a Stage 1 complaint response within ten working days, or let the complainant know if this will be delayed;
• if the complainant is not satisfied with the Stage 1 response, they can ask to escalate their complaint to Stage 2. At stage 2, an independent investigating officer will be allocated with no prior involvement. They will contact the complainant to agree the scope of the complaint, desired outcomes, and target date for completion;
• the Council will issue a Stage 2 response within 28 days of agreeing the scope of the complaint, or let the complainant know if there is any delay. The Stage 2 response will signpost the complainant to contact the Ombudsman if they remain unhappy.

What happened

18. Mr X shares custody of C with C’s mother. In September 2021, he reported child protection concerns about C to the Council. Its Careline service reviewed the referral within two weeks and decided to arrange a ‘single assessment’ as described at paragraph 10. At first the Council told Mr X it could not share the outcome of his referral with him. However, following review by a senior member of staff it contacted him again three days later and told him it had decided to carry out a single assessment. Mr X had already emailed the Council’s complaints team to complain about the Careline team’s first response before he received the second email from Careline.
19. Mr X repeatedly contacted both the Careline team and the complaints team to ask for updates. The Careline team responded in the second week of the Council’s assessment to tell Mr X the name of the social worker carrying out the assessment. Mr X contacted the social worker and they tried to call him once to discuss the assessment, but he did not answer. The social worker sent Mr X a message to say they would update him the following week after they visited C. The Council did not visit C that week or contact Mr X.
20. The Council carried out interviews, including with C, and completed its assessment in two months. It decided to take no further action as described at paragraph 10. This was eleven weeks after Mr X first reported his concerns. It did not contact Mr X about this.
21. Mr X continued to email the complaints team and made a new complaint using the Council’s online complaints form. The Council issued a Stage 1 complaint response in January 2022. This was over one month after it closed its child protection enquiries, and over three months after Mr X first contacted the complaints team. In its response the Council explained it had closed its child protection enquiries and Mr X could contact the social worker to discuss this.
22. Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to Stage 2. He also spoke to the social worker, then asked Careline to re-open its enquiries and send him a copy of the single assessment report. There was then various contact between Mr X and the Council. The Council’s final position was that:
• it would not re-open its enquiries without new evidence to substantiate Mr X’s concerns;
• it would send him a redacted copy of its single assessment report; and
• it would not investigate his child protection concerns, or his complaint, further.

My findings

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

23. Mr X told the Ombudsman he wanted the Council to dismiss staff who were at fault. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, nor to hold individual officers accountable. As described at paragraph 12, if Mr X had concerns about the professional conduct of an individual social worker, it was reasonable to expect him to report this to the professional body, Social Work England. The Ombudsman can only look at whether the Council as a body followed the correct process in acting on Mr X’s concerns about C.

How the Council first reviewed Mr X’s referral

24. Paragraph 9 describes the Council’s policy which the Careline service should have followed in reviewing Mr X’s referral. Paragraph 11 describes the relevant statutory guidance. There was fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X during this first review period because:
• a social worker did not acknowledge receipt of Mr X’s referral within one working day;
• the allocated social worker did not contact Mr X as the referrer to clarify the information he had raised; and
• the Council at first told Mr X it would not share the outcome of the referral with him. Although I recognise the Council contacted Mr X three days later to correct its position, I consider its first response contradicted the statutory guidance and so was fault.
25. There is no evidence the outcome of Careline’s review would have been different had these faults in communication not occurred. Ultimately Mr X provided clear information to Careline when raising his concerns, and the Council still decided to carry out a single assessment despite not speaking to Mr X. However, I consider this caused Mr X worry that the Council was not looking into his concerns properly and distress that it would not share the outcome with him. The Council should act to remedy this injustice.

The single assessment

26. Paragraph 10 describes the Council’s policy it should have followed for the single assessment. Paragraph 11 describes the relevant statutory guidance. There was fault in how the Council carried out its assessment, as I will describe below.
27. As a parent of C, the Council should have told Mr X how it would carry out its assessment and when he should expect a decision, but it did not do so. The Council did send Mr X details of the allocated social worker, but this was only because of chasing by Mr X. The social worker tried to contact Mr X once and said they would try again but failed to do so.
28. The statutory guidance says the Council should have interviewed C and their family members, separately and together as appropriate. The Council’s policy says it will seek and record the views of the child’s parent(s) about its single assessment. The Council did not interview Mr X as C’s father or seek his views about the assessment at any point. It provided no evidence it considered this and decided with good reason it should not do so.
29. The statutory guidance says children should be seen alone where possible. The Council’s policy says the allocated social worker will always see and communicate with the child alone unless it is against the child’s interest. The social worker did not speak to C alone. The Council provided no evidence it considered this and decided it would be contrary to C’s interest for them to be spoken to alone.
30. As a parent of C, once the Council completed its assessment it should have told Mr X its decision, in line with the statutory guidance. After the Council told Mr X the name of the allocated social worker at the start of the assessment, it then did not provide any further updates during the assessment. The Council only told Mr X it had completed its assessment in its Stage 1 complaint response, over a month after the Council closed the case. I do not think the Council would have told Mr X the outcome of its assessment if he had not continued to pursue his complaint.
31. As a parent of C, the Council should have provided Mr X with a copy of its assessment report in line with the statutory guidance. It did not do so even after issuing its Stage 1 complaint response. Mr X then asked for this and repeatedly received conflicting information from Council staff about whether it could share the report with him. In its contact with Mr X following his complaint the Council told him it would send him a redacted copy of the report but then in response to our enquiries said it did not do so. I recognise the Council cannot share information with Mr X about any third parties, i.e., that is not about himself or his child. This means the Council should have carefully considered whether it could share any documentation with Mr X, even if heavily redacted, and explained this to him. The Council’s internal records of its assessment showed it did not consider what information it should share with Mr X when it closed the case. The statutory guidance says councils should have clear processes and principles for sharing information about child safeguarding with those involved in the child’s life. I am not satisfied the Council had clear processes in place for this, which led to Mr X receiving conflicting information from different staff.
32. After the Council closed the case, it told Mr X it could not re-open its enquiries without new evidence to substantiate his concerns. Mr X did provide further information in response to this and had opportunity to discuss the assessment and share his views with the allocated social worker. Following this the Council’s decision remained that it should not re-open the enquiries. Therefore, there is no evidence the outcome of the assessment would have been different had the Council spoken to Mr X earlier, during its assessment. However, I consider the Council’s failure to update or involve Mr X, or provide him with consistent information, caused him distress and concern that the Council had not investigated his concerns properly, or at all. I cannot say whether the outcome of the assessment would have been different had the Council properly considered if it should speak to C alone, in line with its policy. Therefore, I consider there remains uncertainty for Mr X about whether this could have changed the outcome. The Council should act to remedy the injustice to Mr X.
33. In response to our enquiries the Council recognised there were delays in confirming the outcome of the assessment in writing to Mr X. The Council did not provide an explanation for these delays but said it would like to sincerely apologise for this. I consider the Council should take further action to remedy the injustice caused.

Delays in the single assessment

34. As described in the statutory guidance and the Council’s own policy, single assessments should take no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral. The Council should record the reasons for any delays. The Council’s policy also says that where a Section 47 Enquiry is conducted as part of a Single Assessment, it must complete the Section 47 Enquiry within 15 working days. The Council completed its assessment over 50 working days after receiving the referral from Mr X. This was fault. It recorded the delay was because it could not arrange a suitable time to interview those it needed to. However, the Council did not try to arrange an interview at any stage before it carried out the interviews 45 working days into its assessment. Therefore, I consider this delay was fault.
35. I do not consider the delay affected the outcome of the investigation. I also do not think delays caused any injustice to C because ultimately once it did complete its assessment the Council decided not to take further action anyway. However, I do think the Council’s failure to update Mr X during the assessment, and let him know about any delays, caused him distress. The Council should act to remedy this injustice.

Mr X’s claims of discrimination

36. Mr X said the Council discriminated against him as C’s father because it did not take equal accounts from both parents during its enquiries. He said the Council visited C at their mother’s address instead of his address and felt the Council viewed him as the “lesser parent”. The Ombudsman can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act, described at paragraphs 13 to 16.
37. As I have noted above, the Council was at fault because it did not properly consider if it should:
• interview Mr X as part of its enquiries; and
• interview C alone.
38. However, I am satisfied this was fault in how the Council followed its assessment process rather than fault due to any protected characteristic Mr X has. There was no evidence the Council failed to properly consider its duties under the Equality Act, because:
• the Council’s records showed it was aware of the joint custody arrangement for C, and there was no evidence it viewed Mr X as less involved in the parenting of C; and
• the Council’s assessment focused on the risks to C and others involved. It carried out its assessment of C in the environment in which Mr X said there may be a risk, where it could gather the evidence it needed to address Mr X’s concerns. While the Council should have properly considered whether it should speak to C alone, I do not think the fact it spoke to C somewhere other than Mr X’s home is evidence the Council treated him as a ‘lesser parent’.

The Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint

39. Paragraph 17 describes the Council’s complaints procedure. There was fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint, which I will describe below.
40. Mr X first complained to the Council’s complaints team when the Careline team told him it could not share the outcome of his referral with him. The complaints team contacted the Careline team about this a week later, by which time the Careline team had already contacted Mr X to correct its position on this. The Careline team told the complaints team it had resolved the issue, and in response to our enquiries the Council said it considered it had informally resolved the complaint at that point. The Council’s procedure says if it resolves a complaint through early resolution, it will make sure the complainant is happy with the outcome. The complaints team did not respond to Mr X about his complaint at all or check he was satisfied it was resolved. This was fault.
41. The Council’s procedure says if it decides it cannot resolve a complaint via early resolution it will issue a Stage 1 response within ten working days, or update on any delays. As explained above, the Council did not ensure it had resolved Mr X’s complaint via early resolution. It was clear Mr X did not consider it resolved as he continued to chase the complaints team by email about this. The Council issued its Stage 1 response over three months after Mr X first asked to complain. It appears the Council only accepted Mr X’s complaint when he completed an online complaint form in late December 2021. This was fault.
42. When the Council did issue its Stage 1 response, this referred to “your recent complaint” and failed to recognise that Mr X had been repeatedly contacting the complaints service or apologise for the delay. It also did not tell Mr X how he could escalate his complaint if he wished to do so. This was fault.
43. Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s procedure on the same day he received the Stage 1 response. The Council issued a final response nine days later to say it would not consider his complaint further. The Council was at fault in this final response because it did not follow its own procedure as follows:
• it did not assign an investigating officer to contact Mr X, agree the scope of the complaint and target date for completion, and properly investigate it;
• the officer who responded to the complaint had prior involvement at Stage 1 and so was not independent; and
• the final response did not signpost Mr X to contact the Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied.
44. I consider these faults in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint added to the distress caused to Mr X. The Council failed to properly respond to Mr X via any of the routes by which he tried to contact it. Mr X also had to spend avoidable time and trouble pursuing the complaint. The Council should act to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X for the faults we have identified;
2. pay Mr X £300, to recognise:
1. the avoidable distress and concern caused to Mr X while the Council was making its enquiries; and
2. the avoidable distress caused by the remaining uncertainty for Mr X about how the outcome of the Council’s enquiries may have been different if it had properly considered if it should interview C alone.
3. pay Mr X £100 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble he spent pursuing his complaint;
4. ensure an appropriate social work manager with no prior involvement in the case reviews the single assessment in the knowledge that C was not interviewed alone and decides whether the Council needs to do this again, and tell Mr X the outcome of this; and
5. once the review by an independent manager is complete, place a copy of our final decision on the relevant file(s), so the faults we have identified are properly considered if further concerns are reported about C.
46. Within three months of my final decision the Council will review its procedures for sharing information about child safeguarding, to ensure staff are clear about how they should share information with those involved in a child’s life. It will ensure any changes it makes are communicated to relevant staff.
47. Within three months of my final decision the Council will remind relevant staff about:
1. what the relevant statutory guidance and/or Council’s policies say about:
1. timescales for single assessments when making section 47 enquiries;
2. communication with a referrer of child protection concerns;
3. communication with the parent or guardian of a child who is the subject of child protection concerns;
4. the importance of properly considering whether a child should be interviewed alone when undertaking a single assessment, and fully recording this consideration; and
5. the importance of properly considering whether a child’s parents or guardians should be interviewed when undertaking a single assessment, and fully recording this consideration.
2. what the Council’s complaints procedure says about:
1. ensuring complainants are satisfied if proposing early resolution;
2. the timescales for responding to complaints;
3. the process for investigating a complaint at Stage 2; and
4. the need to signpost complainants to the Ombudsman when sending a final response.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council which caused Mr X avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice, review relevant procedures, and issue reminders to its staff.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman