Northumberland County Council (20 002 100)

Category : Children's care services > Friends and family carers

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Mar 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to consider his representations about not being able to work when asking him to sign an agreement to supervise his daughter with her children, threatened his daughter she could lose her children when she was pregnant, provided conflicting advice, delayed considering his complaint and failed to tell him what action the Council had taken to improve its processes following his complaint. The Council delayed considering Mr B’s complaint. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint. An apology and payment to reflect Mr B’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained about the way the Council handled a safeguarding investigation involving his daughter and her children. Mr B complained the Council:
    • delayed beginning court action;
    • produced inaccurate reports;
    • presented a signed viability assessment to court when he had not signed it;
    • failed to consider his representations about not being able to work when asking him to sign an agreement to supervise his daughter with her children;
    • threatened his daughter that she could lose her children when the Council knew she was heavily pregnant;
    • provided conflicting advice about whether his daughter could collect the children from school unsupervised;
    • delayed considering his complaint; and
    • failed to tell him what action the Council had taken to improve its processes following his complaint.
  2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him and his family distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated all parts of the complaint with the exception of the first three bullet points. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
  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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), as amended and 34 (3))
  4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
  2. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
  3. 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

What I found

Background

  1. Mr B’s daughter had four children and was pregnant with a fifth child when the Council became aware of a safeguarding issue in May 2015. That concerned an allegation her partner had sexually abused her eldest daughter. The Council advised Mr B’s daughter not to allow her partner to have any unsupervised contact with the children. Mr B’s daughter signed an agreement to that effect. The Council began social work visits.
  2. At a social work visit in July 2015 Mr B’s daughter said her eldest daughter was now saying she wanted contact with her partner. The social worker gave Mr B’s daughter some advice about her partner not being alone with the eldest daughter.
  3. Mr B’s daughter contacted the Council again in September 2015. Mr B’s daughter told the Council her eldest daughter had reported another sexual assault by her partner at the weekend. The Council contacted Mr B and his wife to explain until it had completed its enquiries it expected them to be part of the safety plan. The Council asked them to supervise their daughter with the children at all times to ensure her partner did not have any contact. Mr B and his wife signed a written agreement to that effect.
  4. The Council began a section 47 enquiry following a strategy meeting. The Council told Mr B’s daughter and said the arrangement of Mr B and his wife supervising her with the children would remain in place.
  5. Mr B raised concerns about extending the written agreement and asked whether his wife could escort his daughter in the car when taking the children to school. Mr B explained his wife could not walk the children from the car to the school itself. The social worker did not raise any concerns.
  6. Later in September Mr B’s daughter told the Council her partner had been trying to contact her. The Council told Mr B’s daughter it had concerns about a breach of the written agreement. The Council told Mr B’s daughter it would have to consider the appropriate action to take to safeguard the children. The Council said it would have to consider whether it was safe for the children to remain at home.
  7. A legal planning meeting took place at the end of September. The meeting decided the threshold was met for care proceedings. The Council also decided to make the children subject to child protection plans. This was due to concerns the Council had about Mr B’s daughter not being able to protect the children from the potential risk posed by her partner.
  8. In October Mr B’s daughter asked the Council whether other family members could provide supervision. Council said it needed to carry out police checks and asked for the details of the family members. Mr B’s daughter provided that information and the Council agreed to amend the written agreement following police checks.
  9. In October Mr B’s daughter asked whether she could take her children to their parents evening without supervision as Mr B was working and her mother would be looking after the other children. The Council agreed to deviate from the written agreement on that one occasion.
  10. In November Mr B’s daughter asked whether she could collect her children from school on her own the following day as her mother was unwell and Mr B was not available. The Council told Mr B’s daughter she would have to ask other family members to supervise. The Council said if there were no family members to supervise it would have to look at alternative care for the children. Mr B agreed to continue with the safety plan. The Council suggested a service coming into the family home to supervise to give Mr B and his wife some respite. Mr B said he did not want a stranger in his home.
  11. Later in November Mr B’s daughter told the Council as her mother was not well there would be an issue collecting the children from school. Mr B’s daughter also said the social worker had told her it was okay for Mr B to keep popping home to check on his wife. The Council checked with the social worker referred to. The social worker said she had not told Mr B’s daughter that. When the Council contacted Mr B’s daughter again she said her brother would supervise her collecting the children from school.
  12. In January 2016 Mr B’s daughter asked the Council if it could help support getting the children to school as Mr B had been offered some work. The Council suggested a support worker from Family Aid or for another family member who had already been approved to provide supervision.
  13. An initial court hearing took place in February 2016. The case was adjourned.
  14. In April the Council became aware of an allegation the partner had been in contact with one of the children via Xbox live. The partner also reported he had remained in contact with Mr B’s daughter. The Council visited to check the Xbox.
  15. A legal planning meeting took place. As a result the Council changed the safety plan to prevent Mr B’s daughter spending any time unsupervised in the community with the children. The Council visited Mr B and his daughter to explain its concerns about continuing contact with the partner. The Council said it would complete a child protection enquiry and assessment to decide whether the safety plan was sustainable until the end of court proceedings. The Council said that could mean the need for a foster placement. Mr B said he would give up work to supervise the children.
  16. A core group meeting took place later in April. At that meeting Mr B raised concerns about having to give up his job. The Council reminded Mr B it had offered other support alternatives which were still open.
  17. Later in April Mr B’s daughter reported Mr B could not help her collect the children from school as he was ill. Mr B’s daughter asked whether her mother could provide the supervision and remain in the car while she dropped the children off at school. The Council contacted the school and the school agreed to provide a member of staff to walk the children to and from the car until the end of the week.
  18. The Council provided Mr B’s daughter with a copy of the review child protection report in May 2016. The Council discussed with Mr B’s daughter the need for the family to think about support that could help them if Mr B and his wife continued to provide all the supervision. The Council discussed the alternative of Family Aid.
  19. At a review child protection conference later in May the Council decided to end the child protection plan. That was not due to concerns reducing but due to the legal framework being in place and the Council not wanting to duplicate plans. Mr B said at the meeting he wanted support to help him get into work. The Council agreed to look at that. By the end of the meeting though Mr B had said this was not what he wanted and he would rather provide supervision until the end of care proceedings. At a meeting with Mr B’s daughter later that month the Council discussed the support available to Mr B to allow him to return to work.
  20. In August the court issued a judgement on the case. The court decided the eldest child had been sexually abused. The court decided Mr B’s daughter had failed to protect her eldest child. The court decided there had been ongoing contact between Mr B’s daughter and her partner. The court also criticised the Council for delays in the case.
  21. Later that month at a social work visit Mr B asked whether he still needed to supervise his daughter with the children. The social worker told Mr B he would need to do that and if he could not do so the Council could explore alternatives such as support in the home, placement with relatives or alternative placements.
  22. In October a Council officer accompanied Mr B’s daughter and one of her sons to hospital while he had some teeth extracted.
  23. In November Mr B’s daughter visited the Council’s offices. The Council told Mr B’s daughter a worker from Family Aid was now available. A social worker then visited with the Family Aid worker in December.
  24. At a final court hearing in February the judge issued a supervision order for the Council to reinforce the work within the risk management prevention plan and the children’s final care plans. The 24-hour supervision would now end as Mr B and his wife were in agreement with the written agreement put to the court but it was expected they would go round to the house daily and spend a reasonable period of time with the children and their daughter.
  25. Mr B put in a complaint in May 2018 after a serious case review took place. Council officers met with Mr B on 26 June. The Council wrote to Mr B on 20 September to say it did not consider the complaints process could offer further help with resolving the concerns given the outcome of court proceedings and the serious case review.
  26. Council officers met with Mr B again in October 2018 and agreed to move his complaint to stage two. Mr B and his daughter met with the stage two investigating officer on 1 November. The complaint elements were agreed in February 2019. The investigating officer produced a report on 25 September 2019. That report upheld and partially upheld some of Mr B’s complaints. The Council wrote to Mr B with the outcome of his complaint on 27 November. In that letter the Council apologised and outlined some of the actions it had taken to respond to the learning from the complaint. Those actions were:
    • appointment of a complaints manager for children’s services;
    • staff sessions with a module focused on complaints, how they are identified and how they should be managed;
    • arrangements for staff training on the need to review supervision requirements and safety plans at meetings;
    • agreement to remind officers of the need to ensure minutes of meeting are issued;
    • a process for managing the legal process which included the team manager and deputy team manager monitoring timescales; and
    • introduction of a quality assurance process within social care work to identify any inaccuracies and correct them at the earliest opportunity.
  27. Mr B asked the Council to move the complaint to stage three on 2 December 2019. The stage three review panel took place on 28 February 2020. The Council wrote to Mr B on 1 April to provide its final response. The Council offered Mr B and his daughter £100 each to reflect their time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

Analysis

  1. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what happened between 2015 and 2017 because I am satisfied it was reasonable for Mr B to await the conclusion of court proceedings and a serious case review before bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  2. Mr B says the Council failed to consider his representations about not being able to work when requiring him to sign and adhere to an agreement to supervise his daughter. Mr B says because the agreement required him to supervise his daughter with her children 24/7 he could not go to work. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council introduced the requirement for someone to supervise Mr B’s daughter following a second allegation of sexual abuse in September 2015. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council introduced that requirement initially for a period of 15 days to protect the children as it was concerned Mr B’s daughter would not keep her partner away. As the Council’s responsibility was to safeguard the children I cannot criticise it for introducing that restriction.
  3. I recognise though this placed significant strain on Mr B and his wife, who were both named as suitable supervisors for their daughter. I am satisfied though when Mr B raised concerns the Council acted to assess other family members so they could provide the supervision rather than Mr B and his wife. I am also satisfied the Council offered to recruit an agency to provide some supervision to give Mr B and his wife some respite. As well as that when Mr B suggested to the Council he intended to leave his job to enable him to continue the supervision of his daughter the Council was also clear he should not do that. As I am satisfied supervision of his daughter was not just left to Mr B, further family members were assessed by the Council and as the Council offered the option of an agency to provide some of the supervision I could not say it had failed to act when Mr B raised concerns. I therefore could not say fault by the Council meant Mr B could not work.
  4. In reaching that view I am aware Mr B says the offer of external help was not suitable as three of the children have special educational needs. Having considered the documentary evidence there is nothing to suggest Mr B told the Council external support was inappropriate on that basis. The only reference to Mr B refusing that external support in 2015 was on the basis he did not want strangers in his home. However, the supervision would have been in Mr B’s daughter’s home and I am satisfied she accepted that in 2016 which resulted in the Council identifying an external agency to provide some support and respite for Mr B and his wife.
  5. Mr B says the Council threatened his daughter that she could lose her children when it knew she was heavily pregnant. Having considered the documentary records I understand this relates to a discussion with Mr B’s daughter in September 2015. The notes from that discussion record the social worker told Mr B’s daughter the Council was holding a legal planning meeting due to a second allegation of sexual assault on her eldest child. The Council told Mr B’s daughter it would take legal advice on the appropriate action required to safeguard the children and this would include consideration of whether it was safe for them to remain at home. I understand that would have been distressing news for Mr B’s daughter to hear, particularly as she was pregnant. However, the Council had a responsibility to safeguard the children and it was not inappropriate to discuss with Mr B’s daughter the potential outcome should the Council not be satisfied the children were safe in her care. I therefore do not consider the Council at fault.
  6. Mr B says the Council provided conflicting advice about whether his daughter could collect the children from school without him being present. Mr B says one social worker told Mr B’s daughter she could collect the children from school without supervision but another social worker said she could not. Having considered the documentary records I note there is reference to Mr B telling the Council the social worker had advised his daughter she could take the children to school unsupervised. However, the documentary evidence is clear the social worker in question denied giving that advice. All the documentary evidence I have seen from 2015 records if Mr B could not accompany his daughter to and from school with the children the family would need to arrange for somebody else to do it. As I have found no evidence of conflicting advice given by the Council I have no grounds to criticise it.
  7. Mr B says the Council delayed considering his complaint. I am satisfied the Council delayed considering Mr B’s May 2018 complaint. The Council’s procedure requires a response within 10 working days. In this case I can see no evidence the Council met with Mr B about that complaint until 26 June 2018. There was then a further delay until 20 September 2018 before the Council told Mr B it did not consider it could address further the areas of complaint given the outcome of the court proceedings and serious case review. Failure to respond to the complaint submitted in May 2018 in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure is fault.
  8. I also consider the Council delayed considering the stage two complaint. I am satisfied Mr B met with the independent investigator on 1 November 2018 but did not receive the final report until September 2019. That is considerably outside the 25 working days in the Council’s complaints procedure and the 65 working days for the extended process. The Council also delayed issuing the stage two adjudication letter as it did not write to Mr B until two months later. Failure to comply with the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints procedure is fault.
  9. The Council also delayed considering the stage three complaint. The Council’s complaints procedure requires the panel to meet within 30 working days of a request. The Council failed to meet that timescale in this case. The Council also delayed issuing the letter following the stage three review panel. That is fault.
  10. Mr B says the Council failed to tell him what action it had taken to improve its processes as a result of his complaint. I refer in paragraph 36 to the action the Council took to resolve the issues in Mr B’s complaint. I am therefore satisfied the Council told Mr B what action it had taken. I appreciate the Council did not reiterate that information in it stage three response letter. However, I see no reason why the Council would have needed to do that given the stage three response letter referred to the changes outlined in the earlier letter. I therefore do not criticise the Council.
  11. So, I have found fault as the Council failed to process Mr B’s complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. I appreciate the Council has offered Mr B £100 as well as £100 to his daughter to reflect the time and trouble they had to go to pursuing the complaint. That relates to the earlier issues Mr B experienced which precede how the Council handled the complaints process from 2018 onwards, which is what I have investigated. The Ombudsman normally recommends an amount for time and trouble between £100 and £250. In this case the stage two investigating officer found fault in how the Council had dealt with the complaints in 2015 and 2016. I have also found there was significant delay dealing with complaints from 2018 onwards. In those circumstances I consider £250 an appropriate outcome, along with an apology for the further delay dealing with the complaints from 2018.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council will pay Mr B £250 (or an additional £50 if the Council has already issued two payments of £100) to reflect the time and trouble he had to go to pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated Mr B’s concerns about inaccurate information in reports produced for court or his concerns about the viability assessment presented to court. That is because, as I said in paragraph 5, the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider matters presented in court. For the same reason I have not investigated Mr B’s concern about the delay beginning court action. I am satisfied the court, when giving its judgement on the case, referred to its concerns about the delay beginning court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings