Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s involvement in a child protection investigation for his child and how it handled the children’s statutory complaint process. We found no evidence the Council’s investigation was so procedurally flawed that the conclusions it reached should be questioned. We therefore found no evidence of fault by the Council. It did cause a short delay in the statutory complaints process, but this did not cause Mr C a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complained about the Council’s involvement in a child protection investigation and how it handled the statutory children’s complaints process for his child, X. Key points of his complaint included:
• it wrongly started a child protection investigation based on a dream X had, and failed to take information and previous allegations into account;
• the Council’s allocated social worker was biased, failed to consider his views, and inaccurate information was recorded about him in an assessment; and
• it caused delays in the statutory complaints process and was wrong to not allow his father to support him as a representative in the Stage three panel meeting.
2. Mr C said, as a result, he experienced distress, and his relationship with X was damaged. He also said X was put at risk.

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 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)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Mr C’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I have also had regard the law and guidance relevant to the complaint.
8. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law

Child Protection

9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their 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. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
10. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
11. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
12. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:
• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
13. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
14. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ and implementing a safety plan.

Statutory complaints procedures

15. 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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
17. 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 investigating officer (IO) to investigate the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
18. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
19. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
20. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
21. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
22. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

23. Mr C has a child (X) who lives with his mother Ms Y. Mr C and Ms Y have not been together for several years, during this time both have made allegations to children services about each other, the paternal grandparents, and the maternal grandparents.
24. In late 2022 Ms Y had a visit from an occupational therapist (OT). During the visit X disclosed she had a dream in which her paternal grandparent had inappropriately touched her, and said this had happened before. The OT made a referral to safeguarding and the police was informed.
25. The Council started a safeguarding enquiry. It held a strategy meeting and found X was not in continuing risk of significant harm. It decided early help was the appropriate next step.
26. The safeguarding enquiry was completed in January 2023. A Child in Need assessment and a Child and Family assessment were subsequently completed, and a referral for early help was made.
27. In Spring 2023 Mr C had visits with X. These ended in arguments with Ms Y and the police was called. Ms Y alleged the allocated social worker did not want Mr C to see X and that she had applied for a non-molestation order.
28. The Council’s early help continued and was reviewed in Summer 2023. This included a meeting with Mr C and the paternal grandparents. The meeting ended early as Mr C felt the social worker only listened to Ms Y’s views.

Mr C’s complaint

29. In July 2023 Mr C complained to the Council, which was under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The key points of his complaint were:
• it should not have investigated X’s allegation as it was based on a dream, and it failed to take account of previous allegations made by X. He felt Ms Y was manipulating X;
• it had recorded incorrect information in assessments and included information which should not be in the assessments. This included he was the perpetrator of domestic violence, details of his new family, references to the paternal grandfather, events regarding X, a non-molestation order had been applied for, and no professionals had concerns about X when with Ms Y;
• the allocated social worker was biased towards Ms Y, failed to listen to X when she wanted to see him, and put words into X’s mouth;
• he had not been invited to some meetings relating to X and had not been supported through assessments. He also said it failed to arrange consistent contact with X for him and the paternal grandmother;
• the Council had not supported X with her mental health and properly considered his concerns about her attendance for medical appointments and school.
30. In response the Council did not uphold Mr C’s complaint overall. It explained its view and why it found it had acted appropriately. It also explained why it had no concerns regarding X when with Ms Y. However, it did accept some fault around the Child and Family assessment it had completed. This included recording the name of another child in error, and it had not offered Mr C to go through the assessment with him.
31. In Autumn 2023 Mr C requested a stage two investigation of his complaint. The Council allocated an independent officer (IO) and an independent person (IP) shortly after.
32. Over the following two month the IO and Mr C spoke and an agreed statement of complaint was drafted. The IO started arranging the investigation immediately after this, which included interviews with relevant Council officers.
33. In early 2024 the IO asked the Council to agree to an extension of the timescales to complete the stage two investigation. This was partly due to delays caused by the Christmas break and staff leave or absence. The Council agreed to a short extension. Mr C was kept informed by the IO.
34. In March 2024 the stage two investigation was completed, and the Council shared its findings with Mr C. Overall his complaint was not upheld, except for:
• the agreed faults in the stage one response;
• minutes in a meeting had not been signed off appropriately;
• it had recorded Mr C’s name incorrectly when posting a letter to him and in an email, but this did not cause a data breach; and
• allegations around domestic violence between Mr C and Ms Y was not investigated as this related to confidential information and was not relevant for X’s case. It also found it was not at fault for failing to offer Mr C advice and support around the domestic violence he had previously reported against Ms Y as this occurred before the Council became involved.
35. The Council agreed with the stage two investigation report and apologised to the limited faults it found. The report made one recommendation, which was for the Council to meet with parents to go through a completed Child and Family assessment. However, in this case it was now not necessary as there was no identified risk or safeguarding concerns regarding X.
36. Mr C was unhappy with the stage two investigation and findings. In April 2024, he requested a stage 3 investigation by an independent panel, but said he was still going through its stage two response.
37. The Council arranged a meeting with Mr C and the paternal grandparents to discuss the finding of its stage two investigation, but Mr C did not attend so the meeting could not take place.
38. Mr C subsequently told the Council he wanted to progress to stage three and for the paternal grandfather to attend as his representative. The Council disagreed this was appropriate due to the third-party information which would be shared or be discussed during the hearing. It said Mr C could be accompanied by an advocate, and written representation could be made.
39. Over the following month, several email exchanges took place between the Council and Mr C regarding the stage three panel and who he could bring to the meeting. Mr C disagreed the paternal grandfather could support in for the full hearing, but reluctantly agreed to the Council’s proposal. This was the paternal grandfather could attend the first part of the hearing where Mr C’s representations were put forward but would then leave for the second part of the meeting.
40. The Council arranged the panel and informed Mr C. It subsequently shared the complaint and relevant files with the panel members to consider prior to the meeting.
41. The Stage three panel meeting was held in July 2024. It considered Mr C’s complaint, but largely reached the same conclusions as the stage two. The findings were changed on a few points, which were:
• it should have offered Mr C to go through the Child and Family assessment when this was completed; and
• it should have offered Mr C advice when he reported physical and mental abuse, even if this occurred before it became involved. A recommendation was made to increase staff awareness of domestic violence and how the to respond to such disclosures.
42. The Council agreed to the stage 3 panels findings and recommendation. Its final complaint response was shared with Mr C.
43. Mr C has continued to dispute the Council’s findings and how it handled the statutory complaint process. He asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.

Analysis and finding

44. Mr C’s complaint relates to matters which occurred more than 12 months before it was brought to our attention. His complaint is therefore late. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider his complaint. This is because he has continued to pursue the matter without delay, and he could not approach the Ombudsman until the children’s statutory complaints process was completed. I will therefore consider his complaint from December 2022.

Did the Council investigate Mr C’s complaint appropriately

45. The three stage statutory complaints process considered all of Mr C’s complaints. This included inaccurate information, errors in the Child and Family assessment, social worker bias towards Ms Y, lack of support for X and Mr C, and how Mr C’s views were considered and listened to.
46. The evidence shows the IO considered the specific points Mr C raised when investigating his stage two complaint, which included examination of the Council’s case records and interviews with relevant staff. The IP agreed the investigation had been properly conducted and with the overall findings of the IO’s report.
47. The Council accepted the stage two findings, which set out some limited fault by the Council and a recommendation.
48. I found the Council’s prior investigation of Mr C complaint appear to be thorough and detailed. I am not satisfied Mr C has shown evidence, or enough evidence, the Council’s investigation was so procedurally flawed that the conclusions it reached should be questioned. I therefore find no evidence of fault by the Council regarding its stage two investigation and response to Mr C.

Handling of stage three panel and Mr C’s representation

49. Mr C asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage three of the statutory complaint’s procedure in late April 2024. The Council subsequently had 30 working days to hold the panel hearing and a further 20 working days to issue its response.
50. The evidence shows it took the Council 48 days to arrange the panel meeting. However, I have not found the Council at fault. This is because:
• it arranged a meeting to discuss the stage two and the panel hearing with Mr C, which he did not attend; and
• it informed Mr C the paternal grandfather could not be his representative in some parts of the hearing as third-party data was likely to be shared. The discussions between Mr C and the Council delayed the process with at least three weeks; and
• the Council arranged the stage three panel without delay, when Mr C reluctantly agreed to the Council’s proposed arrangement regarding the paternal grandfather’s involvement in the hearing.
51. While it therefore took longer than the required 30 working days to arrange and hold the panel hearing, this was not due to fault by the Council.
52. I have also considered Mr C’s complaint around the stage three panel failure to properly consider his views and representations, disagreement with the accuracy of the notes of the meeting, and the decision the paternal grandfather could not remain for the second part of the hearing.
53. I found the evidence and panel findings shows it properly considered the relevant information, and Mr C’s and the paternal grandfather’s representations. The considerations appear to have been thorough and detailed. I am not satisfied Mr C has shown evidence, or enough evidence, the panel hearing was so procedurally flawed that the conclusions it reached should be questioned. I therefore found no fault by the Council regarding its stage three process and its response to Mr C.
54. I understand Mr C feels the notes of the hearing should have contained more information and detail. However, such notes are not meant to cover each and every point in detail and everything that was said. Rather, it should set out the information necessary to show what was considered, how it was considered, key representations, and its reasoned findings. I found the notes to appropriately do so.
55. In addition, Mr C was entitled to be represented by the paternal grandfather at the stage three panel hearing. However, the Council and the panel also had to consider whether this conflicted with data rights of others. Both found it did, and it was appropriate to restrict the paternal grandfather’s involvement to the first part of the hearing. This was a decision the panel and the Council was entitled to make.

Delayed complaints handling

56. I have considered whether the Council caused delays in the statutory complaints process for Mr C’s complaints.
57. Mr C complained to the Council in July 2023. The Council subsequently had a maximum of 20 working days to respond to his complaint, but it took the Council a further three weeks to respond. I understand the delay was partly due to its attempts to speak with Mr C and arrange a call to discuss his complaint and a review of the early help was taking place. Therefore, although the Council may have caused a slight delay, I am not satisfied this caused Mr C a significant injustice.
58. Mr C escalated his complaint to stage two of the statutory procedure in Autumn 2023. The Council subsequently had 25 working days to respond, which could be extended to a maximum of 65 working days.
59. The evidence shows:
• the Council allocated an IO and IP without unnecessary delay;
• the IO subsequently reached out to Mr C to arrange contact to discuss his case, but Mr C asked for questions to be emailed to him. The IO sent questions for Mr C to respond to, which he did almost a month later;
• a statement of complaint was agreed with Mr C in November 2023 after he had made suggestions and amendments;
• the IO arranged interviews with relevant officers without delay. These were scheduled in December 2023 and January 2024 due to annual leave, staff availability, and the Christmas break;
• in January 2024 the IO asked the Council to agree to an extension to complete the stage two investigation due to the time it had taken to interview relevant officers. The Council agreed. Mr C was informed about the delay and the reasons for it;
• the IO completed the report in late January 2024 and shared it with the IP. Two weeks later the IP agreed to the report, and the report was shared with the Council. Three weeks later the Council accepted the report; and
• in March 2024 it shared its adjudication letter with Mr C, which was 77 working days after Mr C escalated his complaint.
60. I found the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timescales for the statutory complaints process. This was fault, which resulted in a short delay. I acknowledge Mr C’s availability, preference for communication, and response to the IO caused a delay, and the Christmas break and staff availability added to this. However, the 65 days available within the procedure should have been enough to complete the process.
61. I found this did not cause Mr C a significant injustice. Partly as he also caused some delay, and due to the fact, the IO informed him about the delay and the reasons. The apology he received for this was therefore sufficient to acknowledge the limited injustice this caused.

Child protection enquiry and relationship with X

62. The role of the Ombudsman is not to reinvestigate a complaint which has appropriately been considered through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. I have therefore not reinvestigated Mr C’s complaint.
63. While I acknowledge Mr C’s view the Council should not have started a child protection enquiry in December 2022, I have not found the Council at fault. This is because the Council was aware X’s allegations were made following a dream. It was entitled to reach its view it was appropriate in the circumstances to make enquiries and shared its reasons for doing so. Without fault in the process, I cannot criticise the Council’s decision for doing so.
64. I acknowledge such enquiries are challenging, but the Council reached its view not to progress to further investigation and provide early help without unnecessary delay.
65. I understand Mr C had concerns for X’s welfare in Ms Y’s care and he feels the Council did not consider this enough. However, based on the information available to the Council, it was entitled to reach its view his concerns should not be considered further, and it was satisfied X was safe.
66. In addition, Mr C’s frustrations with information or allegations made by Ms Y and how she enabled his access to X, may have impacted his relationship with X. The Council’s early help may attempt to work with parents to promote a good relationship, but it was not responsible for securing Mr C or his family access to X. Such disputes are for the court to decide, which I understand Mr C has considered and is progressing.

Back to top

Final decision

67. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault on the substantial part of the complaint. There was some limited fault due to a short delay in the children’s statutory complaints process, but this did not cause Mr C a significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman