Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not deal with child protection issues properly. The Council did not properly assess Mr X’s circumstances and delayed making a reassessment. Mr X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mr X £4,724.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not deal with child protection issues properly because:
• It made an assessment of his family circumstances which was incorrect; and
• It delayed making a reassessment of his circumstances
2. Mr X says he suffered avoidable distress and financial loss.

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. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

10. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
11. The Council completed a Child and Family Assessment (CFA) in June 2023. Mr X complained to the Council about the outcome of this assessment and delays to it. The Council upheld his complaint and committed to updating the assessment. The Council said it expected this assessment to be completed by October 2023.
12. The updated assessment was completed in January 2024.
13. Mr X complained again to the Council about the further delay and impact. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised but did not agree to make a financial remedy as Mr X requested.

Analysis

14. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• the assessment should have been prioritised as had been agreed with him in September 2023;
• it apologised for the delay;
• that it accepted this will have caused him upset and frustration and additional worry.
15. This is fault by the Council. Mr X suffered avoidable delay and distress.
16. Mr X said that he had been forced to cancel plans for himself and his partner to move in together in October 2023 because of the delay.
17. The Council said in its stage 2 complaint response that it could, “not find any records of conversations with you or directions asking you to maintain 2 houses or cancel your moving plans.”, and, “it is not the practice that we would provide financial assistance or alternative accommodation for adult family members for whom we have concerns.”
18. The Council accepted that it advised Mr X that that his partner should have supervised contact with your children pending the parenting assessment that was being completed. In practice, on the balance of probabilities, this meant that Mr X and his partner would be unable to move in together as planned.
19. I do not agree with the Council in respect of Mr X’s financial loss. This was not a normal situation. It had been brought about directly as a result of the Council’s accepted fault. If the Council had not upheld Mr X’s first complaint about the CFA in June 2023, and/or had not delayed the reassessment that it agreed to, Mr X would, on the balance of probabilities, have been able to move in with his partner together in November 2023. This represents a delay of three months.
20. Mr X says this has cost him £4,724, broken down into rent, Council Tax, utility bills.

Back to top

Action

21. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delays. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £4,724 in respect of his financial loss incurred.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman