Summary: Ms X complains of fault in the way the Council dealt with her when assessing her sons’ needs. The Council has been at fault in the way it has communicated with her and this has caused Ms X avoidable anxiety. The Council has already apologised for its communication failures, and it will also pay Ms X £750 and remind staff that parental consent is required for assessments of children unless there is a good reason not to seek consent.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains the Council:
1. Failed to uphold agreements put in place at the end of the complaints process in 2016 (removing a suicide threat reference from the record, her children’s cases to be held at advice and support without active social work involvement, implementation of a new social work supervision template);
2. Completed two single assessments in 2017 without telling her, and did not send them on until June 2018 when she complained;
3. Used inaccurate pre-2016 information in two new single assessments, carried out without her consent in 2018 when she had only agreed to a review of the 2017 assessments. She says these new single assessments wrongly claimed her children were or had been subject to emotional abuse. She says this creates a pen picture of her character and skills as a parent that is completely untrue;
4. Failed to send her documents showing the result of the 2018 assessments;
5. Failed to respond to letters of 27 February, 22 June, 26 June, 29 June, 4 July and 23 July 2018;
6. Failed to provide information about the assessment process requested on 24 May 2018;
7. Fabricated an email that reinstated a cancelled meeting of 24 May 2018 to support an earlier lie; and
8. Failed to have regard to her post-traumatic stress disorder (omitting to ask if she needed any specific adjustments and insisting on social workers visiting every six weeks when she found it hard to have people in the house).
2. Ms X says the time and effort she has had to expend has made her very upset and frustrated, as well as causing her to worry and worsening her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
4. 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)
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Ms X’s complaint and confirmed with her the wording of her complaint. I agreed to contact her only in writing at her request. I made written enquiries of the Council and spoke to it on the telephone. I considered what the Council sent me in response to those enquiries. I also considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989 and the Equality Act 2010.
7. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. I considered those I received and amended the draft accordingly.

Back to top

What I found

8. Ms X has an adult child and two younger children. The two younger children have disabilities. She receives direct payments from the Council to help her meet their needs.
9. Ms X has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This means she finds certain types of contact difficult. She prefers contact to be in writing to minimise stress.

What happened, and was it fault?

Complaint a): agreements by the Council after a complaint

10. Ms X says the Council agreed to actions in 2016 after she complained.
11. The Council told me it had no record of a complaint from Ms X ending after early-2015. It sent me evidence of this complaint, which it upheld. The records it sent show it agreed to:

• Provide information to Ms X;
• Consider the process followed by the local authority designated officer for safeguarding children (LADO);
• Remove assessments from a computer system;
• Arrange an audit of the case; and
• Complete an action plan for learning.

12. The Council provided a document from 2015, which showed it had completed most of the actions.
13. The details above showed Ms X had complained against the Council and it had accepted fault in early 2015. But they did not show any complaint in 2016 and the agreed actions did not match those to which Ms X refers.
14. In response to the draft decision, Ms X told me that, though the Council accepted fault in early 2015, she regarded the matter as ending in early 2016 because it took until then to close matters. She also sent me details of the complaint. There matched those provided by the Council. It is clear therefore that the complaint which the Council says ended in 2015 is the complaint that Ms X says ended in 2016.
15. Ms X says the Council went further than the actions agreed above. She said it accepted it would not provide any active social work involvement in her case, remove certain records so that social workers would not see them and implement a new supervision template. She provided a testimony from a friend who attended two meetings with the Council with her. Both say the Council’s record of these meetings is incomplete.
16. While Ms X and her friend agree what was said by Council officers, the Council has not accepted this. In trying to reach a view of what was said on the balance of probabilities, there is no impartial witness and no written evidence to corroborate either side’s case. I cannot therefore find the Council at fault in failing to do what it agreed.
17. Notwithstanding the above, entries in children’s social care records cannot be removed. They can only be noted as incorrect.

Complaint b): completing two assessments in 2017 without telling Ms X and not sending them on until 2018

18. The Council accepted when Ms X complained that it had not told her it was carrying out assessments of her sons. It also accepted it failed to send them on to her. The Council apologised for this. I find the Council at fault. I will deal with the injustice caused to Ms X later in this statement.

Complaint c): using inaccurate pre-2016 information in 2018 assessments, carried out without her consent, that created a false picture

19. A marker on a social care file is not the same as a record. It is an active entry on a system that alerts those who open the record to an ongoing issue of which they need to be aware. The Council accepted when Ms X complained that it had added a marker for emotional abuse to Ms X’s children’s records that it should not have done. It says it has since removed this marker.
20. I cannot say if information on the Council’s records pre-dating 2016, some of it going back much further, is factually accurate.
21. Assessments involve the professional judgement of social workers. Even where these judgements are unwelcome, this is not automatically fault. In response to the draft decision, Ms X disputed the judgements of social workers, saying they were factually inaccurate. However, I am not able to say the views they reached were outside the normal range open to professionals.
22. Despite that, the Council has accepted it should not have added a marker for emotional abuse to the case. This was a further stage than simply recording concerns. I therefore find it at fault for adding something it accepts should not have done. I will deal with the injustice caused later in this statement.
23. I have seen a letter from the Council to Ms X of 27 June 2018. In this letter, the Council stated it started assessments on 24 April 2018 and told her first during an email exchange on 16 May 2018.
24. Councils can carry out fresh assessments of children’s needs where they receive services, or the parent receives direct payments for care provision. Reviewing the assessments from 2017, as agreed by Ms X, would mean fresh assessments. However, it is matter of courtesy to let the parent know what is intended and the Council failed to do this. This was fault. Again, I will deal with the injustice caused later.

Complaint d): failure to send on copies of the 2018 assessments

25. The Council accepted when Ms X complained that it had failed to send on copies of the 2018 assessments. It told me it failed to complete them because of Ms X’s complaint. Failing to complete them was fault.
26. I note the Council’s social care records state the Council had sent out the assessments. I also note a letter of 27 June 2018 to Ms X stated the author thought the assessments were hand-delivered on 21 June 2018. The Council’s confirmation to Ms X in January 2019 that it did not send them out shows both earlier records were wrong. While I do not find there was any intent to deceive, the error in the records was fault. I will deal with the injustice caused later.

Complaint e): failure to respond to letters

27. The Council accepted when Ms X complained that it had had a problem dealing with letters. In its response to my enquiries, it confirmed it had not replied to the six letters Ms X referenced. It wrote to her, apologising for this, and replying to the contents. I find the Council at fault and will deal with the injustice this caused later.

Complaint f): failure to provide information about the information process as requested

28. The Council has confirmed its problems with correspondence led it not to reply to Ms X’s request, dated 24 May 2018. It says there were two letters of that date from Ms X, but that it did not realise this and replied to one only. It has provided an address to which Ms X can refer any remaining issues with the assessment process. I find the Council at fault. I will consider the injustice caused later.

Complaint g): fabricating an email reinstating a cancelled meeting to support an earlier lie

29. I checked the Council’s email correspondence, both internal and with Ms X, leading up to the meeting on 24 May 2018.This became complicated and led to several changes of plan. I can see no evidence of fabrication or any lie. Instead, the evidence shows an officer created an email, but failed to send it. It also shows the officer booked a room for the meeting and that it was a decision to substitute one officer for another who was unavailable on 24 May 2018 that led to the final change of plan.
30. While I do not find fault with the Council in this point of complaint, it would have been better for the person responsible for the meeting to have checked availability carefully to avoid multiple emails to a service user.

Complaint h): failure to consider Ms X’s PTSD by not asking if she needed any adjustments to normal practice and insisting on sending social workers to her home

31. The Equality Act 2010 says that anyone who provides services to the public or a section of the public, who finds there are barriers to disabled people using a service must consider adjusting their process. If those adjustments are reasonable, they must be made.
32. Despite the above, where a social worker must assess a child’s needs, it would not be reasonable for this to happen without him or her seeing the children in the home environment.
33. The Council told me it only became aware of Ms X’s PTSD in January 2018, since which time it has only carried out one home visit, with her agreement. Such a home visit, to assess Ms X’s children, would not be fault.
34. However, in response to the draft decision, Ms X supplied a copy of an email she sent to a social worker in March 2017. It stated she had been diagnosed with PTSD and was receiving treatment. I therefore find the Council at fault for not asking her if she needed it to do anything differently.
35. Ms X later asked for all communication in writing in January 2018.
36. I note the records state an officer called Ms X in February 2018. Moreover, when the Council wrote to Ms X on 14 June 2019 to respond to the letters it had failed to deal with, this letter confirmed there was a further telephone call on 3 July 2018. I therefore also find the Council at fault for failing to make all communication in writing since January 2018. I deal with the injustice caused below.

Was there injustice caused by fault?

37. The primary fault was poor communication. The Council failed to respond to letters. It also failed to tell Ms X what it was doing, or to send her copies of assessments. It also failed to consider the possible effect of her PTSD and then communicated by telephone when she had asked it not to. I cannot say precisely how this may have affected Ms X’s mental health. But it can only have added to her anxiety and caused her to lose trust in the Council. It is not surprising that Ms X suspected an email had been fabricated, even though I have seen evidence this was not the case. It is also not surprising that she first asked the Council to communicate only in writing and then, following a series of four emails in one day, to communicate only by letter. I have already noted that visiting her home to assess her children was unavoidable. But the stress this caused her could have been lessened if the Council had communicated better with her and fostered greater trust. The avoidable anxiety the Council’s consistently poor communication with Ms X caused was injustice to her.
38. The Council was also at fault by leaving a marker for emotional abuse on the records of Ms X’s children. While I cannot say this led to anyone treating Ms X less well than they would otherwise have done, placing the marker without good reason would, once she found this out, have given Ms X avoidable anxiety that someone might do so.
39. I therefore find fault by the Council has caused Ms X avoidable anxiety for a period of more than18 months since she asked for communication in writing until the date when her complaint is resolved.
40. I also note that, had the Council responded to Ms X’s correspondence, it might have resolved her concerns and avoided the need for her to contact us. That time and trouble is further injustice.

Agreed action

41. The Council apologised to Ms X for its communication failures before our findings. I welcome that. I also welcome its offer to explain any unresolved issues about the assessment process that Mrs X has at this late stage. I am also reassured by its confirmation that it has reviewed the way it deals with incoming correspondence.
42. However, within a month of the final decision, it will also remind all staff carrying out assessments that they must seek parental consent before starting an assessment unless there are good reasons that lead to them having to override this.
43. To remedy the personal injustice to Ms X, the Council will, within a month of the final decision, pay her £750, made up of £500 for her avoidable anxiety over a period of more than 18 months and £250 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have upheld Ms X’s complaint and completed my investigation. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman