Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled a Section 47 investigation following allegations made against him. He says the Council did not inform him an investigation was taking place, and it did not ask him for his views on the allegations. We found the Council at fault for failing to inform Mr X of the investigation and for poor record keeping. This caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic remedy, and take action to prevent this happening in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled a Section 47 investigation following allegations made against him. He says he was not informed an investigation was taking place and was not asked for his views or input in relation to the allegations made against him. He says the Council took the side of the children’s mother.
2. Mr X says the investigation is flawed and has caused him significant distress. He says he has had to leave his job as a result of the Council’s actions.

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. 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.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

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. 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.
11. 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.

12. 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”.
13. 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.

What happened

14. Mr X’s child (child A) has complex needs and is subject to a CiN plan. He has an allocated social worker.
15. In January 2025, an allegation was made against Mr X to his employer by a family member. The allegation was that Mr X had caused harm to child A. Mr X worked with children. Mr X’s employer submitted a multi-agency referral form that day. Mr X reported himself to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), who manages and oversees allegations made against people who work with children in the Council’s area.
16. The Council held a strategy discussion on the same day. This was attended by the LADO and the police. The Council subsequently decided to begin a section 47 (s47) investigation and undertake enquiries. Mr X’s employer informed him the LADO and the police had both decided to take no further action.
17. The Council’s contact record states that a social worker spoke to Mr X and child A’s mother.
18. The Council also arranged a home visit with Mr X, and it said it notified him of the s47 investigation over the phone. Mr X disputes this.
19. At the end of January, the Council recorded the outcome of the s47 investigation as ‘concerns substantiated’. It said this was because, although unclear about the motive of the family member who had made the allegation, the allegation was also corroborated by child A’s sibling. It decided to continue the CiN process for child A. It stated that it did not need to escalate to child protection as child A was not in Mr X’s care. It said family time between Mr X and child A would need to be carefully managed.
20. At the beginning of February, the Council visited Mr X at his home address. The Council’s case records state that it discussed the ongoing Child and Family Assessment with Mr X, and discussed his concerns for child A.
21. The Council completed the Child and Family Assessment in February. It asked relevant family members about the allegations and recorded their views. As part of this assessment, Mr X was asked to rank how concerned he was for the welfare of the children.
22. Mr X submitted a stage one complaint to the Council in May. He said the Council had not notified him at any point that it was conducting a s47 investigation concerning the allegations made against him. He also said he was not informed about the outcome of the investigation, and that he had only become aware a s47 investigation had taken place when his employer had notified him that month. He said he had asked at the time if there was a s47 investigation and the social worker had told him there was not.
23. The Council issued its response in mid-June. It said it understood that Mr X had been updated about the progress of the s47 investigation through telephone calls with the social worker and a home visit in February. It said this concluded with an updated Child and Family Assessment, about which he was notified. It accepted that it might not have notified him of the overall s47 investigation. It apologised for this. However, it said it remained content with its decision to find the allegations substantiated.
24. Mr X remained unhappy so requested the Council escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
25. The Council issued its second complaint response in mid-August. It said it had reviewed its file and spoken to a senior social worker. It confirmed the Child and Family Assessment, and the visit to Mr X’s home address in February, had been part of the s47 investigation. It accepted that there was no reference to the s47 investigation in either the assessment or meeting. It apologised and said it should have made Mr X aware of this.
26. Mr X approached the Ombudsman in September 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The Council accepted in its complaint response that it did not refer to the s47 investigation in either the Child and Family Assessment or the home visit and that, overall, Mr X was not aware a s47 investigation was taking place. It acknowledges this is fault.
28. The Council’s own process sets out that parents will be “engaged as appropriate” with the s47 process. Statutory guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’ also states that parents must be informed unless doing so will put the child at risk of harm. There is no evidence the Council considered this to be the case. The Council’s assessment shows that it did not consider any risk to child A to be ‘live’ as he was not living with Mr X and at the time there was no contact between them. Additionally, the Council has not provided any notes from the strategy discussion, or any other records, that document its decision not to inform Mr X of the s47.
29. The Council said Mr X was given the opportunity to share his view on the allegations as part of the Child and Family Assessment. The assessment started in January 2025 and was updated regularly. I have reviewed it and can see Mr X was asked to provide his views on his children’s welfare in February, and in doing so denied the allegations in passing. He was aware of the allegations. However, the assessment did not give him a proper opportunity to respond to them. The Council had already substantiated the concerns at the end of January. There is no evidence to show it sought or recorded Mr X’s views before deciding the outcome of the investigation at the end of January. The Council therefore reached its finding without giving Mr X an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
30. Contrary to its complaint response, the Council told the Ombudsman it had told Mr X during a phone call in January that it was carrying out a s47 investigation into the allegations against him. There is no case note recording this call or what was discussed. The Council also told the Ombudsman it informed Mr X of the outcome of the s47 investigation during a home visit in February but accepts this was not recorded in the case notes either.
31. The Council’s record keeping was poor, which is fault. It should have been able to evidence that Mr X was told about the allegations and that it recorded his response. It should also be able to evidence that he was informed of the s47 investigation and its outcome.
32. Given the Council’s acceptance in its complaint response, the absence of any record supporting its account that it informed Mr X, and Mr X’s position that he was not told at any stage, I find on balance it is more likely than not that Mr X was not made aware a s47 investigation was being carried out.
33. I understand Mr X wants the actual allegations to be found unsubstantiated. However, I cannot say on the balance of probabilities, even if it had not been for the Council’s fault, whether the outcome would have been any different. Nor is it the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the underlying allegations should be upheld or not.
34. The Council’s failures caused Mr X an injustice. He was not informed at the time that he was the subject of a s47 investigation, and so could not respond or seek advice. He was left without a proper opportunity to take part in a process that reached a finding about his own family. This caused Mr X significant distress, and additional uncertainty since he was not aware what actions the Council had taken. I have recommended suitable remedies to address this injustice below.

Back to top

Action

35. Within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the identified fault;
2. Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s fault;
3. Add a copy of our final decision on Mr X’s (and his family’s) case file, so that its records set out the findings above.
36. Within two months of the final decision the Council should:
1. Remind relevant staff that parents must be informed of a s47 investigation unless doing so would put a child at risk of harm. Where a decision is made not to inform a parent, the reason must be recorded.
2. Review how it records key actions in s47 cases. This should include whether it has notified relevant parties.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice, for which I have recommended suitable remedies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman