Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled child protection enquiries by incorrectly recording sensitive details about him and misrepresenting what happened. We found the Council was not at fault for commencing enquiries. However, it did not follow correct procedure as it did not tell Mr X about the enquiries or the outcome. We found no fault in the Council’s recording of the enquiries, but there was an error in a later review report which the Council will correct.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council mishandled child protection enquiries by incorrectly recording sensitive details about him and misrepresenting what happened. Mr X’s wife told the Council about something a foster child said, and he sent an email to the Council reporting what happened, but the Council recorded this as an allegation it had uncovered. The Council then commenced child protection enquiries based on a social worker’s inaccurate recording of the facts.
2. Mr X also complained the Council did not tell him about its enquiries, as it was legally obliged to do, that it reported him to the police, and did not tell him the outcome, which was that the allegations were unfounded. Mr X said the Council denied him the chance to challenge the allegations.
3. Mr X did not find out until several years later. He was distressed to find the police held a permanent record of the incident and the Council got important details wrong. He would like the Council to correct the records.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
5. 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.
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)
7. 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

8. I investigated the Council’s handling and recording of child protection enquiries. I did not investigate issues involving Mr X’s personal data, as these were investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
10. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
11. Mr X 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

Child protection

12. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and determine whether protective action is required. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
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. When a council has concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than that used by the Police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. Mr X and his wife, who I will refer to as Mrs X, are foster carers. The Council placed two children into their care in 2016.
17. Mrs X telephoned the Council after one of the children (Child One) made a comment about Mr X allowing inappropriate behaviour from the other child (child Two). Mrs X said they were no longer comfortable looking after the children, and asked the Council to find another placement for them straight away.
18. Later the same day, Mr X sent an email to the Council explaining what happened.
19. The Council then emailed the Police, relaying Mrs X’s description of the incident, and seeking a strategy meeting.
20. The Council held a strategy meeting with the Police to discuss the incident. They agreed to carry out a joint visit to speak to the children as part of enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act. This was to find out what happened and consider whether further action was necessary.
21. The Police met the children a few days later. Both children confirmed the incident was a misunderstanding, and neither child made any allegations about Mr X.
22. The Council then held a position of trust meeting. It confirmed it identified no risk or danger and it recommended closing the investigation with no further action. The Police agreed. A social worker told members of the meeting that Mr X was unaware the meeting was taking place, but was aware of the allegation. One recommendation from the meeting was the Council should send Mr X a formal notice of the outcome.
23. The Council’s records state a social worker telephoned Mrs X after the position of trust meeting to tell her the outcome of the Section 47 enquiries. Mrs X denies the Council told her about the investigation or the outcome at that time.
24. A Council manager closed the enquiry shortly after, but the Council did not tell Mr X.
25. The Council held an annual review of Mr and Mrs X’s suitability as foster carers in 2017. The review report referred to the events with the two children in 2016. However, the Council’s description of events is slightly different to the reports Mr and Mrs X made in 2016. Rather than saying Mr X allowed inappropriate behaviour from Child Two, the report states Child One accused Mr X of behaving inappropriately towards Child Two. A form accompanying the review report is signed by Mrs X. She also confirmed on the form that she had seen the review report. However, Mrs X later said this was not the case and she did not see the completed review report.
26. In November 2021, Mr X was interviewed by police about a different child protection enquiry. The Council telephoned Mr X after the enquiry to tell him the allegation was not proven. The Council also sent Mr X an outcome document. It was then Mr X found out about the Council’s Section 47 investigation in 2016.
27. Mr X complained to the Council. He said he knew nothing of the 2016 investigation and believed its existence prejudiced the police’s decision to interview him about the 2021 allegation. He questioned why the Council did not send him a formal outcome document, as it did in 2021. Mr X said the Council was wrong to start Section 47 enquiries in 2016, because the child made no report of improper conduct. He said the Council only started Section 47 enquiries after Mr and Mrs X said they could no longer keep the children.
28. Mr X also complained the 2017 review report inaccurately records the allegation and the Council shared the report with other professionals. He said the Council falsified the 2017 review report, as it contains comments Mr and Mrs X did not make, and could not have made, as they were unaware of the 2016 Section 47 enquiry.
29. The Council’s final complaint response accepts it did not follow correct procedures for Section 47 enquiries. It should have sent Mr X a letter at the start of the investigation, detailing the allegation, and an outcome letter, but it could not evidence it had done so.
30. However, the Council said it did tell Mrs X the outcome of the enquiry. It said records show a social worker informed Mrs X by telephone on 4 October 2016 following the position of trust meeting, and discussed the enquiry again at a supervision meeting in November 2016.
31. The Council also said Mrs X signed a 2017 annual review document which included the 2016 allegation. The Council accepted its description of the allegation in the 2017 review report is incorrect. But it said the strategy meeting minutes from 2016 are correct, and it did not share incorrect information with other professionals. The Council agreed to correct any errors, or add corrective notes to Mr X’s file.
32. The Council said it has a duty to safeguard the wellbeing of children, and it needed to investigate the statement Child One made. It was only through Section 47 enquiries the Council and Police could be assured there was no risk of harm to the children. The Council said it took suitable action and involved the Police, in line with guidance.
33. The Council recognised the complaint process took longer than normal, but denied any unreasonable delay. It said Mr X’s complaint contained many parts. It held meetings with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the complaint and focus its investigations. It then undertook in-depth complaint investigations.
34. Going forward, the Council said it will ensure it includes both registered foster carers from the same household in supervision and review discussions, and will ensure both carers sign any reports. It will also ensure clear communication when a carer is subject to allegations, including a face-to-face meeting after any investigation. It will ensure social workers and managers quality assure all reports before they are circulated.
35. The Council offered Mr and Mrs X a remedy payment of £500 in recognition of their time, trouble, and distress.

My investigation

36. Mr X told me he disagreed with the Council’s decision to start Section 47 enquiries. He said the Council knew Child One had a history of making false allegations, and it could have spoken to the children without involving the Police.
37. Mr X said the Council distorted and exaggerated the allegations to include things that were not said, and it changed the allegations in one of the reports. The Council tried to give the impression it ‘uncovered’ the incident, rather than receiving a report from Mr and Mrs X.
38. Mr X considers the Council acted improperly and did not investigate fairly or impartially. The Council told Mr X it had no record of making a referral to the Police, but the Police provided Mr X with an email from the Council. Mr X said the Council is not being truthful.
39. Mr X said neither he nor Mrs X saw the annual review report from 2017. He said they would have questioned it if they had. He questioned why the report contained specifics about the allegations when they were unfounded. He also said the report misrepresented the allegations and was seen by a multi-agency panel who would not previously have known about the incident.
40. The Council told me it holds strategy discussions to determine whether the threshold has been met for Section 47 enquiries. As part of this discussion, it considers whether to speak to the child. The Council and the Police agreed in this case to speak to the children.
41. The Council told me it has no record of an email or report to the Police about the incident. It assumes it telephoned the Police requesting a strategy meeting.
42. The Council said it has an internal email from one officer to another which states they told Mrs X the outcome of the Section 47 enquiries by telephone on 4 October 2016.

Analysis

43. Mr X told me the Council’s referral to the Police was not an accurate account, and implies it uncovered the allegation. On the evidence I have seen, the Council’s description is consistent with that given by Mr and Mrs X. The email states the referral is based on a report from Mrs X, and does not claim the Council ‘uncovered’ the incident. I found this to be an accurate description of the information the Council had available.
44. The Police confirmed they supported the Council starting Section 47 enquiries to establish the exact allegations and what happened, as it was unclear. We would not fault that approach. And while Mr X is unhappy there is a record of the incident, that is the correct process. I found the Council’s records of the strategy meeting and position of trust meeting to be an accurate representation of events, as described by Mr and Mrs X. It is also clear the Council considered the allegations were unfounded and took no further action.
45. The only issue I found with the records of the Section 47 enquiry concern the Council’s referral to the Police. The Council said it does not have a record of this and assumed the referral was made by telephone. However, Mr X provided me with records he obtained from the Police which show the Council notified the Police by email. The fact the Council no longer has a record of this is fault. It should retain all records relating to Section 47 enquiries.
46. Mr X said the Council did not tell him it was making enquiries, and denied him the chance to challenge the allegations. While Mr X did not know the Council started child protection enquiries, he did send an email to the Council with his version of events. The Council therefore knew Mr X’s views. It also received a similar account of the incident from Mrs X. Once the Council and Police spoke to the children it was not necessary to speak to Mr X, as it established it was a misunderstanding and no further action was necessary. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for not also speaking to Mr X as part of its enquiries.
47. However, when the Council decided to take no further action, it should have told Mr X the outcome of its enquiries. This is confirmed in the position of trust meeting. The Council said an officer told Mrs X the outcome by telephone and an email from the time refers to this. Mrs X denies this. In any event, a telephone call to Mrs X would not be sufficient. The Council cannot show it told Mr X, or wrote to him, as it was meant to. It is unclear why the Council did not send Mr X formal notification, but its failure to do so was fault.
48. The Council reviewed Mr and Mrs X’s suitability as foster carers in 2017. I do not find the Council at fault for including details of the 2016 allegations, even though unfounded, as there needs to be a record of such incidents. However, I found the review report gave an inaccurate description of the allegations which differed from the 2016 Section 47 enquiry. The Council will amend this report or add a corrective note.
49. Mr and Mrs X argue the review report incorrectly includes their views on the Section 47 process. They say this cannot be accurate as they did not know what enquiries the Council made or what outcome it reached. There are two issues here. First, the Council’s records suggest Mrs X was aware of the outcome of the Section 47 enquiries. Second, Mrs X signed a document included as part of the review report, on behalf of herself and Mr X, including writing ‘yes’ in a section asking if she read the review report. I cannot know for certain whether Mrs X did read the report, but as she signed to confirm she had then I must conclude, on balance, that she did. While I appreciate Mr X was unaware of the Section 47 enquiries, I do not find the Council at fault in circumstances where Mrs X signed a document which referred to their shared views.

Injustice

50. As above, the Council was not at fault for investigating the incident in 2016.
51. It was always going to be distressing for Mr X to know the Council was investigating allegations of this nature. A degree of distress was therefore unavoidable.
52. However, if the Council told Mr X about the investigation at the relevant time, it would not have come as a surprise, and Mr X would have been prepared for it. To find out later, unexpectedly, came as a shock to Mr X and caused him avoidable distress. It also caused a sense of outrage and a feeling that the process was not followed correctly or with transparency. That is his injustice.
53. The Council’s error describing the allegation in the 2017 annual review report also caused some avoidable frustration. Mr X said he felt a sense of injustice over the last three years since the error came to light.
54. The Council previously offered a remedy £500. That is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, and I have not seen evidence suggesting this is not a suitable offer.
55. The Council’s commitments to making service improvements and offering staff training are also in line with our guidance. I therefore do not recommend any further improvement measures.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for not writing to him or telling him about the child protection enquiries in 2016 or the outcome of the investigation. The Council’s apology should acknowledge the distress Mr X suffered in finding out about the investigation several years later.
• Repeat its offer of £500 for the distress Mr X suffered.
• Apologise for incorrectly describing the allegation in the 2017 annual review report.
• Confirm to Mr X that it has corrected the allegation wording in the 2017 annual review report or placed a corrective note on Mr X’s file.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I completed my investigation. I found the Council was not at fault for commencing child protection enquiries. However, it did not follow correct procedure as it did not tell Mr X about the enquiries or the outcome. I found no fault in the Council’s recording of the enquiries, but there was an error in a later review report which the Council will correct.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman