Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with safeguarding matters relating to his child and that social workers acted unreasonably. He also complained about matters related to contact and court proceedings. We cannot consider matters related to the courts. However, we found the Council had failed to properly record and take account of important information relating to safeguarding and the Council should have agreed to escalate Mr X’s complaint when he requested this. We recommended and apology and modest payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has been at fault in discriminating against him, in preventing him from having contact with his child, in the preparation and scheduling of a Child Protection Meeting and in delaying the completion of a Section 7 report for the Courts. He complains the Council’s actions have caused him distress and uncertainty.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. We are investigating Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of social workers, and the preparing and scheduling of the CPC meeting. We are not investigating elements of the complaint that relate to contact with his child or the preparation of a court report. This is because they are outside our jurisdiction as they are court matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
6. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Working Together to Safeguard Children

7. Paragraph 28 of this statutory guidance highlights the importance of information sharing. It states:

‘No single practitioner can have a full picture of a child’s needs and circumstances so effective sharing of information between practitioners, local organisations and agencies is essential for early identification of need, assessment, and service provision to keep children safe. Rapid reviews and child safeguarding practice reviews have highlighted that missed opportunities to record, understand the significance of, and share information in a timely manner can have severe consequences for children.’

Council Procedures – Section 47 Child Protection Enquiries

8. The Council’s procedures state that it will convene an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) with 15 days of starting child protection enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act. The purpose of the meeting is to decide if there is a risk of significant harm to a child that warrants a Child Protection Plan.
9. The procedures state an ICPC report will be shared with the child, their family and the Independent Chair (IC) of the ICPC two full days before it takes place.

Strategy Meetings – Section 47 Child Protection Enquiries

10. Strategy Meetings are multi-agency meetings involving social care, health and police officers. The purpose of the meeting to share information and make decisions about risk and planning to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare.
11. As at 2022, the Chair of a Strategy Meeting was responsible for both chairing the meeting and writing up and circulating the minutes of the meeting.

What Happened

12. Mr X complains about actions by the Council which relate to his son. I have referred to his son as Y in this statement.
13. Mr X does not live with Y. In May 2022 the Council held a Strategy Meeting because an individual living at the same address as Y had been arrested. The meeting was attended by the police and they provided information about the individual’s history. Child protection enquiries under Section 47 were initiated at that time.
14. At a further Strategy Meeting in January 2023, the police provided the same information about the individual’s history. A social worker stated this had not been shared previously. However, the Council later accepted that the information was provided in May 2022, but it was not recorded in the minutes of Strategy Meeting.
15. The Council stated, because the information was not in the Strategy Meeting minutes, staff in the Children’s Services team were not aware of it. When they became aware, the information raised safeguarding concerns and the Council did instigate child protection enquiries as a result.
16. In January 2023, an ICPC was held. The Council accepted that the report for the ICPC was not provided two full days in advance. Mr X complained that the Independent Chair had suggested the meeting be postponed, but it went ahead. Mr X questioned whether the attendees could reach decisions properly as a result.
17. The Council stated it had not found evidence that the Independent Chair had wanted to postpone the meeting. However, as he no longer worked for the Council, some of his emails were no longer available and it could not seek his views. Mr X provided emails sent by the Chair to various council officers thet the Council provided to him under a Subject Access Request (SAR). These evidence the Chair’s concern, the day before the meeting, that the required report had not been sent to him or Y’s parents in the required timeframe. He suggested postponing the meeting, but agreed to continue if the report was available first thing the following day. The emails evidence the reports were completed by this time.
18. The report from the social worker to the meeting considered the situation and commented on all people in Y’s life. They made recommendations which were focussed on Y’s safety and needs. The report of the outcome of the meeting made various recommendations for keeping Y safe and took account of the police information.
19. The Council stated, between May 2022 and 2023, there were separate, private law orders in place about contact which kept Y safe. However, it had been recommending these could be lifted. When the police information was shared again in 2023, the Council revised its recommendations and the private law orders remained in place. As a result, no harm came to Y as a result of the error.

Other Issues

20. In June 2023 Mr X stated that he had lost trust in his social worker. The Council also told us Mr X had, at times, recorded meetings and interactions with council staff.
21. The Council agreed to change his social worker to try and restore his relationship with the Council. The Council says its position is that he cannot continue to record meetings without the consent of the officers involved. However, the Council agreed Mr X could bring someone with him to support him at meetings with professionals.

Matters we have not investigated

22. Mr X’s complaint raised issues that relate to contact arrangements and preparation of documents for private court proceedings. We cannot consider these matters as they relate to court proceedings.
23. Mr X also complained that social workers made derogatory remarks about him. I understand he saw the remarks in case records/contacts between two social workers that were sent to him following an SAR. The Council’s response to our enquiries indicated this issue had been raised in court proceedings, so we have not investigated the issue further. I note the Council accepted the comments were unprofessional and inappropriate, apologised and took it up with the staff concerned.

Complaint Handling

24. Mr X initially complained in August 2023. The Council responded to his complaint on 5 September 2023. On 17 October the Council received a request from Mr X to escalate the complaint. It wrote back to Mr X the same day to state that Mr X was out of time for escalating his complaint. It stated the request had to be made by 3 October (within 20 days of the original response). It stated some of the complaint also related to court matters.
25. The Council stated as at 3 October it assumed Mr X did not wish to escalate this complaint further. It told us this was because he had not made a request by the deadline and in the meantime he had raised a new complaint. The Council also noted that when Mr X contacted the Council on 17 October he used the Council’s online portal which was not used to deal with complaints about children’s social care. For these reasons, when it received his request to escalate it decided Mr X was acting unreasonably and was not trying to seek a resolution.
26. We noted there was significant delay by the Council in responding to another of Mr X’s complaints.

Was there fault by the Council

27. There was fault by the Council. The Council failed to properly record important information from the police about risks posed to Y. This led to the Council suggesting a course of action which could have placed Y at risk of harm. Fortunately, the Council was able to change its position before Y was put at risk when the information was provided again at a later date. I note the Council has now provided dedicated note takers for ICPC meetings to ensure proper records are kept of the important information discussed at these meetings.
28. There was further fault because reports for an ICPC meeting were not provided to the Chair and family in the timescales required by the Council’s procedures. Mr X complained that the chair requested a delay to the meeting which did not happen. The evidence provided by Mr X shows the Chair considered requesting postponement of the meeting, but ultimately he agreed to proceed with the meeting when the reports were provided. The meeting went ahead. The outcomes included important recommendations to keep Y safe. So, regardless of whether the chair considered delaying the meeting I do not consider it was fault that the meeting proceeded.
29. I found the Council did not have cogent reasons for not exercising discretion and agreeing to consider Mr X’s complaint at Stage Two of its complaint process, even though his request was slightly late. However, as the Ombudsman has now considered the elements of the complaint that have not been before the courts, this has provided an outcome for Mr X and no further purpose can be served by the Council considering the same complaint further

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within four weeks of my final decision:
31. The Council should provide a written apology for the failure to properly record and act on police information when it was first raised and the delay in sending reports out prior to the Initial Child Protection Conference. It should also apologise for not agreeing to escalate Mr X’s complaint.
32. The Council should make a payment to Mr X for £100 to recognise that he was put to additional time trouble and distress as a result of the fault identified.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman