Summary: Mr X complained about the child safeguarding action the Council carried out involving his child in 2023. There was no fault in how the Council made its decisions during the safeguarding investigation. There was fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X poorly and how it handled its complaint. The Council agreed to apologise, provide Mr X with information it had previously said it would, and issue reminders to its staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council started and carried out a safeguarding investigation involving his child in 2023. He says the Council:
• should not have started a safeguarding investigation;
• told the child’s school to keep them there without their parents’ permission;
• should not have spoken to the child alone without their parents’ permission; and
• produced an inaccurate social work assessment, which it refused to amend when he provided / offered information showing the errors.
2. As a result, Mr X says he and his family have suffered significant distress and financial losses and their ability to take part in community activities was affected. He wants the Council to properly explain the reasons for its actions, remove the records of its safeguarding investigation and correct its social work assessment.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I have not investigated the actions of the School in not releasing Y to their parents. We cannot investigate most issues which happen in schools, including issues of internal organisation or management of schools.
11. I have investigated how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation, including any advice it gave, or requests it made, of the school.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

15. 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.
16. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
17. 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.
18. 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.

19. 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’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
20. When carrying out assessments under the Children Act, government guidance says social workers should speak to children alone, where possible. The London Safeguarding Children Procedures, which the Council uses, says that children, who are the focus of safeguarding concerns, must be seen alone, subject to their age and willingness, preferably with parental permission.
21. Everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe. If children and families are to receive the right help at the right time, everyone who encounters them has a role to play in identifying concerns, sharing information, and taking prompt action. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 
22. Schools and colleges have a legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people. This includes protecting children from maltreatment. (Education Act 2002, section 175)
23. Schools cannot generally refuse to release a pupil to someone who has parental responsibility for them. However, there are circumstances when a school can refuse to do this, including where there are safeguarding concerns.

What happened

24. The following is a summary of the key events for the period I have investigated. It is not, and is not intended to be, a detailed account of everything that happened or all the evidence I have considered.
25. Around midday, while at school, Mr X’s child, Y, told teachers that Mr X had hurt them a few weeks ago and they were scared to go home as their mother would not be there that evening.
26. The School contacted the Council to report what Y had said, and the Council suggested the School check with Y’s mother. The School did this and recorded that Y’s mother said the incident did not happen, they remembered Y being upset one bedtime and that they would be out that evening until after Y’s bedtime.
27. The School sent a formal safeguarding referral to the Council around an hour later.
28. Later in the afternoon, around the end of the school day, the School made several attempts to contact the Council asking what it should do. The Council told the School it was still considering the referral and, until it had done so, Y should remain in school and should not be allowed to go home with their parents. The School refused to allow Y’s parents to collect them at the end of the school day, based on its conversations with the Council.
29. During this time, Mr X tried to contact the Council several times about what was happening, but the Council did not allow him to speak to the social worker who was considering the referral.
30. Around an hour or so after the end of the school day, the Council held a strategy meeting to discuss the referral. It gathered information from the school, health services and had already consulted with the police. The strategy meeting decided the Council should make enquiries under section 47.
31. A social worker from the Council met with Y at the school around an hour after the strategy meeting. Y repeated what they had said to teachers but did not, at that time, appear distressed. After speaking with Y’s sibling and Y’s parents the social worker decided that it was safe for Y to return home.
32. The Council later visited Y and their parents, including Mr X, at home as part of its enquiries. Based on its assessment the Council decided Y had been consistent in their account of what had happened, but that it had no reason to believe Y was at any further risk. It ended its involvement with Mr X’s family in mid-July 2023.
33. Mr X raised concerns with the Council that some of the information contained in the Council’s assessment was incorrect or inaccurate. He provided the Council with a list of points where he disagreed with the content of the assessment.
34. The Council told Mr X it could not amend a completed assessment, but it placed the record of his concerns on file so this could be read alongside the report in future, if necessary.
35. Mr X complained to the Council in late 2023. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint just under three months later. The Council accepted it had not communicated well with Mr X and could have explained the process to him better. It did not, however, apologise for this at the time. The Council did not uphold the other parts of Mr X’s complaint. However, it did say it would issue an addendum to the social worker’s report covering the inaccuracies and errors Mr X had listed.
36. Mr X asked the Council to review his complaint under stage two of its complaints process around March 2024. The Council sent Mr X its final response in July 2024. Again, the Council did not uphold most of Mr X’s complaint, but it again accepted that its communication with Mr X had been poor and apologised to him for this. The Council also agreed to send Mr X copies of the case notes it had added about inaccuracies and errors he had identified.

My findings

37. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2024. Therefore, his complaint about events during the middle part of 2023 is late. We can only consider late complaints if we decide there are good reasons to do so. In this case, I am satisfied there were delays with the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in good time after the Council’s final response. Therefore, I consider the delays with the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints are a good reason to investigate events from 2023 now.
38. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council should have started child safeguarding proceedings, or what the Council’s assessment report should say. Those were decisions for the Council to make. Our role is to investigate how the Council made those decisions, including whether it considered the available evidence and followed the correct process. If the Council did so, we cannot question the outcome or the professional judgement of the Council’s social workers.

Decision to make section 47 enquiries

39. I do not consider there was fault in how the Council assessed the referral from the School or how it decided to start a section 47 enquiry.
40. The evidence shows the Council treated the information from the School seriously, consulted with the other agencies and organisations it should have done and that it did this within a matter of a few hours following the referral.
41. There is no evidence the Council had decided what action it was going to take before the strategy meeting. I do not consider the Council’s request or instructions to the School that it should not release Y to their parents shows the Council had already decided it was going to make enquiries under section 47. At that stage, the Council had very limited information and its focus was rightly on ensuring Y was safe and protected until it had properly assessed the concern.
42. I appreciate Mr X disagrees there was enough information for the Council to have decided to make section 47 enquiries. While the information the Council had at that time was limited, it acted quickly on the information it had and maintained the correct focus Y’s safety and wellbeing. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the information it had. Since there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, I cannot question the outcome.

Advice / instructions given to the school

43. I do not consider the Council was at fault for either asking or instructing the School not to release Y to their parents on the afternoon in question.
44. There are limited circumstances in which schools can refuse to release a child to their parents. These include where there are safeguarding concerns. The Council had information which suggested to it that Y might have been at risk. The Council had a duty to ensure Y’s safety until such time as it had considered the referral and taken any further necessary action.
45. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for asking or instructing the School to take steps, under its general duty to safeguard children, to do the same.

Interviewing Y alone

46. I do not consider it was fault for the Council to have interviewed Y alone. Statutory guidance and the safeguarding procedures the Council follows says that children should be interviewed alone, especially where they are the subject of any safeguarding concerns.
47. However, the Council’s procedures also say that the Council should, where possible, obtain a parent’s consent to do this. The Council has provided no evidence that it sought consent from either of Y’s parents to interview them alone. The Council’s failure to do this was fault.
48. This poor communication, combined with the poor communication with Mr X, covered below, caused Y’s parents avoidable distress, over and above the distress which is always involved with child safeguarding. However, I do not consider it caused further injustice. If Y’s parents had refused consent, I am satisfied the Council would have decided it had reasons to speak with Y alone without that consent. There is no evidence the interview by a social worker caused Y any distress.

Child and family assessment

49. On the balance of probabilities, I do not consider there was any fault in how the Council carried out the child and family assessment, or how it produced the report about this.
50. Mr X raised several points about details in the assessment which he considered to be inaccurate or wrong. Some of these were about quotes which social workers had included which Mr X said were not correct. I cannot say whether the social worker mis-quoted, mis-heard or simply had a different interpretation of what was said.
51. Several of the other points were about details which Mr X said should be included in the report or should be different. It was for the social worker to decide what details to include in the report. I am satisfied the social workers considered all the information available to them when producing the report; therefore I cannot question the outcome or their professional judgement.
52. It is unlikely that any of the points Mr X raised about the report would have affected the outcome. The Council decided that it did not need to take any further action and it ended its involvement with Mr X’s family. Even if the report had been written as Mr X says it should have been, I am satisfied the outcome would have been the same.

Communication with Mr X

53. In its responses to his complaint, the Council accepted it should have communicated better with Mr X, particularly while it was assessing the initial concern. The Council apologised for this in its stage two complaint response. I am satisfied that apology was a suitable remedy for the additional distress caused by the poor communication.

Complaint handling

54. There were delays in the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint, both at stage one and stage two. While Mr X’s complaints were detailed and covered a range of issues, there is no evidence the Council told Mr X it would take longer to respond to his complaints or kept him up-to-date about any delays.
55. On balance, I am satisfied both the delays and the lack of communication were fault which added to Mr X’s injustice. However, the Council has apologised for these delays and I am satisfied that is a suitable remedy.
56. In its final complaint response, the Council said it would provide Mr X with copies of the case notes it had added in response to his complaint. However, the Council has not provided any evidence it did this, as it had agreed to do. That was fault with the Council’s complaints handling and caused Mr X further avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Action

57. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise further to Mr X for not seeking parental permission to interview Y alone at school and for failing to send him the added case records it said it would; and
• provide Mr X with a copy of the case records it added in response to his complaint.
58. Within three months of my final decision the Council will remind relevant social work staff of the importance of good communication with parents from the outset of child safeguarding concerns and of the information which should be explained to parents in such cases.
59. 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.
60. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

61. 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