Summary: Ms X complains of the actions of social workers in responding to concerns about her care of her grandchild, Z. She says this caused her severe distress and resulted in her admission to hospital. The only fault by the Council was some delay in the complaint process, for which it apologised.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains social workers wrongly held a meeting at a nursery instead of her home.
2. She says the social workers ambushed her and were aggressive at the meeting.
3. She also says social workers did not respond to emails or do what they had promised in delivering an Easter egg or belongings to her granddaughter, Z.
4. Finally, Ms X complains about the conduct of a videoconference after she complained to the Council.
5. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused her severe distress and that she had to be admitted to hospital.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
9. 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

10. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989 and read the report of an independent investigator the Council appointed to consider Ms X’s complaint, which Ms X provided. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. I considered those I received.

Back to top

What I found

Background

11. Ms X is Z’s paternal grandmother. She does not live in the Council’s area. Z came to live with her because the Council decided before her birth that she was at risk of neglect from her parents. The Council became concerned about Ms X’s care of Z following an incident in late 2018. The central event in this complaint was an unplanned meeting between two social workers and Ms X at Z’s nursery on 14 March 2019. Ms X left the meeting without Z. The social workers then returned to Leicester with the child. The Council de-registered Ms X as a foster carer a few weeks later.

What happened, and was it fault?

Holding the meeting of 14 March 2019 at Z’s nursery rather than Ms X’s home

12. The independent investigator’s report referred to the social care records. These showed the social workers travelled to the area where Ms X lived to see Z at home. They recorded that they had been unable to speak to Z alone. They therefore returned on 14 March 2019 to see Z alone at her nursery. Social workers must hear the child where there is any risk to investigate. In this case, Ms X had called police after a physical incident with Z’s father about four months earlier. Ms X was alleged to have left Z in the house with him when she fled. She was also alleged to have later allowed Z’s father unsupervised contact with Z, despite having sought a court order to restrict his contact. The independent investigator noted the social care records stated the Council had received video evidence to this effect.
13. According to the independent investigator, the social care records stated the two social workers had found it hard to find the nursery, arriving just as Z was eating, and only shortly before Ms X arrived to collect her. The original plan had been to visit Ms X alone after seeing Z at the nursery, ensuring both were seen separately. Travelling to Ms X’s home that day would have meant meeting her while Z was present.
14. Ms X says the social workers should not have held the meeting with her at the nursery. And the independent investigator noted a social work manager stated holding a meeting there was not best practice. However, doing so did not breach any procedure. Ms X says the social workers did not consider the effect on her mental health. However, the social workers had to put Z’s interests first. This was their second visit and they needed to decide what actions if any were needed to safeguard Z. Holding a meeting with Ms X at the nursery meant they could ensure Z did not witness the meeting. That would have been difficult in Ms X’s home with Z present. And travelling to the area a third time later would have caused delay. I therefore find holding the meeting at the nursery was a matter of the social workers’ judgement, and not fault.

The social workers’ conduct during the meeting

15. Ms X says the social workers were aggressive, having ambushed her. In their evidence to the independent investigator, both social workers denied this. I note that being questioned by social workers about the care of a child, aware that they can remove the child from one’s care, is not likely to be a comfortable experience. That is because the objective is to protect children. Having said that, social workers do sometimes act with fault in such circumstances. But I can only reach a view where there is either an admission of certain conduct, or a corroborating independent third-party account. In this case, there were no independent third-party witnesses to the meeting at the nursery who could corroborate the account of either party. This means I cannot say if there was fault. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Communication issues

16. The independent investigator saw evidence that a social worker responded to Ms X’s emails. He also saw evidence that the social worker took belongings from Ms X to Z, and gave her an Easter egg bought by Ms X. I do not find the Council at fault.

The videoconference

17. Ms X says a social worker restricted her time during a videoconference following up her complaint. The independent investigator saw the social care records. He concluded the social worker left the videoconference for a time because of an urgent incident. Such incidents are not rare in social work. On the basis the independent investigator saw records that stated there had been an urgent incident requiring the social worker to leave for a period, I do not find the Council at fault.
18. I note the independent investigator found the Council had not sent Ms X its response to her complaint at the time of the videoconference. He found it at fault for failing to do so. No-one has disputed the Council apologised for this delay. So, I do not recommend further remedy.
19. Ms X sent documents in response to the draft decision that concerned contact arrangements with Z. Contact arrangements are matters for a court, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have found fault with the Council’s complaint handling. It has apologised for that, so I do not recommend further remedy. I find no fault in the remaining matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman