Summary: Miss X complained about the actions of its children’s social care service. She also says it did not progress her complaint through an appropriate procedure. We have found that the Council was at fault. It failed to engage appropriately with Miss X’s son as part of its assessment and did not properly investigate the concerns raised. This resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience, which the Council has agreed to address.

The complaint

1. Miss X disagrees with the actions taken by a social worker and has identified what she believes to be a number of inaccuracies within assessment reports. She says that despite raising these concerns, the Council failed to consider or address her complaint through an appropriate complaints procedure.
2. Miss X’s complaint is that:

• Although an assessment was closed in October 2024 with no identified safeguarding concerns, a further assessment was reopened in December 2024 without any new evidence.
• The wording of the Council’s assessment suggests that Miss X’s son was asked a series of questions. However, he was not asked any questions due to his age.
• The social worker asked Miss X to inform a family member that he could not have contact with her children. This should have been communicated directly by the Council.
• The social worker stated during a Core Group Meeting in January 2025 that if the parents did not comply, the children would be removed from their care.

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 normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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(1), as amended)
6. 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 have and have not investigated

7. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
8. We cannot look into issues about the accuracy of the information the Council holds about individuals. Miss X has been advised by the Council she can approach its Information Team and, if she remains unhappy, she can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss 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

Law, guidance and policy

Statutory government guidance: ‘Working together to safeguard children’ (2023)

11. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must make such enquiries as they consider necessary to decide whether any action is needed to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect.
12. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family. 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.

Liverpool City Council’s Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures

15. Children should be seen, listened to and included throughout the assessment process, and they should be actively involved in all parts of the process based on their age, developmental stage and identity. They should be seen alone and, if this is not possible or in their best interests, the reason should be recorded.

The Council’s complaints policy

16. The Council defines a complaint as:

… an expression of dissatisfaction … about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of individuals. There is no difference between a ‘formal’ and an ‘informal’ complaint. Both are expressions of dissatisfaction that require a response.

17. If someone complains about the conduct of a Council officer, the Council may investigate their concerns and take action under its HR policies and procedures. The Council cannot share the details or outcomes of such cases, but it may be able to provide redress if a complainant has been adversely affected.
18. The Council will make sure any necessary referrals are made, including to Social Work England.

What happened

19. In October 2024, a referral was made to Children’s Social Care following concerns about a family member, who is a registered sex offender, spending time with Miss X’s children.
20. The Council completed a single assessment and concluded there was no evidence to suggest the children were left unsupervised with the family member. No safeguarding concerns were identified, and a safety plan was in place. The assessment noted that, should evidence emerge in future that the children were left unsupervised, a strategy meeting would be required. The case was closed in early December 2024.
21. Shortly after the case was closed, concerns were raised by Miss X’s son’s school about him displaying sexualised behaviour. The Council reopened the case, held a strategy meeting, and decided to undertake section 47 enquiries. The Council shared its reasons for concern with Miss X when visiting her home.
22. A case note was added to Miss X’s son’s records by the social worker’s manager stating that his voice was not evident on the case file and only Miss X’s daughter had been seen.
23. In January 2025 an ICPC was held, at which it was agreed that Miss X’s children should be make subject to Child Protection Plans.
24. A further assessment was completed following the ICPC. The assessment was worded in a way that suggests Miss X’s son was spoken to as part of the process.
25. A Core Group Meeting was held at the end of January 2025. The meeting discussed what was expected of the parents and extended family members in relation to the children’s safety and wellbeing.
26. Miss X made a complaint to the Council at the end of April 2025. The Council responded that, as her complaint related to the conduct of a council officer, it would investigate the concerns and may take action under its HR policies or procedures.
27. The Council told Miss X that it would not be able to share the outcome of any investigation, but that complaints about staff conduct would have oversight from a complaints manager and the HR team.
28. The Council also told Miss X that, if appropriate, referrals would be made as part of the investigation process, including to Social Work England.
29. The Council’s Complaints Officer referred the concerns internally but was advised that the social worker was an agency worker who had left the Council’s employment in March 2025. No further action was taken was taken by the Council.
30. Miss X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025.

My findings

31. Miss X says there was no evidence to justify the Council reopening her case in December 2024. Councils have a statutory duty to investigate where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They also have a duty to carry out any enquiries they consider necessary to safeguard children. The Council undertook section 47 enquiries based on information it received that raised safeguarding concerns. I find no fault in the Council’s actions, as it acted on information received and carried out enquiries permitted and required by law.
32. I have reviewed the assessments and agree that they are worded in a way that suggests Miss X’s son was spoken to as part of the assessment process. But the case records indicate that Miss X’s son was not actively involved in the assessment process, despite its safeguarding procedures saying that children should be included and spoken to alone. There was no reason in the case records to explain why he was not spoken to. I therefore find the Council at fault for failing to follow its own procedures.
33. Miss X felt the Council should have explained to her family member why they were not allowed to have contact with her children. There is no statutory requirement for a social worker to communicate such restrictions directly to third parties on a parent’s behalf. As Miss X holds parental responsibility, it was her responsibility to protect her children from identified risks and to have the necessary conversations with family members regarding contact. I find no fault with the Council’s actions in this respect.
34. I have reviewed the minutes of the Core Group Meeting and find no evidence to suggest the social worker stated that the children would be removed from their parents’ care if they failed to comply. While it would be reasonable for a social worker to explain the potential consequences of non-compliance with a Child Protection Plan, I find no fault with the Council’s actions.
35. The Council decided that, instead of considering Miss X’s complaint under its complaints procedure, it would do so under its HR procedure. This meant, in effect, she would have no answers to her complaints.
36. At least some of Miss X’s complaints (such as her concerns about the decision to reopen her son’s case) were about the Council’s actions and the standard of its service delivery, rather than about the social worker’s personal conduct. Although the social worker was named throughout, this was partly because she was the officer exercising the Council’s statutory functions.
37. These service complaints, under the Council’s own policy, required a response. But the Council’s decision not to separate her service complaints from her complaints about the social worker’s conduct denied her such a response.
38. Furthermore, by the time the Council decided that it was to investigate Miss X’s complaint under its HR procedure, the social worker had already left her employment with the Council (and had done so more than a month previously).
39. Because of this, there was no investigation whatsoever of the concerns Miss X had raised, and no relevant action taken (or even considered).
40. For these reasons, the Council was at fault for its handling of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:

• Review Miss X’s original complaint to identify whether there was any fitness to practise concerns that should be considered for referral to Social Work England.
• Apologise to Miss X for its failure to speak to her son during its assessment, and for its failure to investigate or respond to her complaint, which meant she felt it was necessary to pursue the matter with the Ombudsman. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council should consider this guidance when writing to Miss X.
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Miss X to recognise the distress that these matters caused her.

42. Within 12 weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council will ensure its staff are fully trained on the Council's complaints policy, and are aware of the Council’s responsibility to respond to complaints which meet the relevant definition under the policy.
43. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

44. The Council was at fault. This caused injustice to Miss X, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman