Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his concerns about the care of his two children, who were in foster care. The Council was at fault for failing to follow its safeguarding procedures and for failing to tell Mr X the outcome of its investigation. This has caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and put him to avoidable time and trouble. We are satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy. The Council agreed to apologise and make a personal remedy payment to Mr X and act to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. failed to take appropriate action when in 2019 he raised concerns about the conduct of his daughters’ social worker and foster carer;
2. failed to take appropriate action when his daughter’s foster carer hit her in 2014;
3. failed to share the Local Authority Designated Officer’s (LADO) investigation outcome with him; and
4. failed to share the outcome of the school’s and police’s investigation into matters relating to his daughter.
2. He says this caused him avoidable distress because he missed out on regular contact with his daughters, and he was worried about their safety.
3. He would like the Council to investigate the concerns he raised and tell him of the outcome of the investigations.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take appropriate action when in 2019 he raised concerns about the conduct of his daughter’s social worker and foster carer. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints b, c and d, and I explain why at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
7. 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

8. As part of the investigation, I have considered:
• the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• the comments and documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Children Act 1989

10. This Act sets out the circumstances where a council may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law places an overarching duty on the Council to act in the best interests of the child.
11. The Council may receive referrals from children, parents or third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. These referrals should be considered under safeguarding procedures, used by councils to investigate such concerns. Safeguarding procedures will often involve other agencies such as schools and police who will have an involvement in a child’s welfare.
12. Some referrals engage Section 47 of the Children Act. This provides for the Council to respond to concerns a child may be at risk of ‘significant harm’. In turn, this covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
13. Section 47 of the Children Act allows the Council to make enquiries with all agencies who work with a child and the family. Social workers should also see the child as soon as possible. Once the Council completes this initial assessment it can take a range of actions. At one extreme it can close a case where it finds no grounds to substantiate concerns and no reason to take any other action. At the opposite it could act to place a child into its care. In between, it has a range of choices including carrying out a detailed assessment of children’s needs. This might lead it to offer services under Section 17 of the Children Act.

Allegations against people who work with children

14. Government guidance says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, “to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.” (Working together to safeguard children, Department for Education 2018, Chapter 2, paragraphs 5 & 6). The officer is known as the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
15. The LADO is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
16. The Council Safeguarding Children Partnership follows the London Child Protection Procedures (LCPP).
17. LCPP has a procedure for dealing with allegations against foster carers involving a referral to the LADO. The procedure applies where allegations are made or suspicions are raised that approved foster carers have:
• behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child;
• possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or
• behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children or a child.
18. LCPP says that once the Council receives an allegation against a person working with children it should:
• make a written record of the information, including the time, date and place of incident, persons present and what was said;
• sign and date the written record; and
• immediately report the matter to the designated safeguarding lead.
19. The designated safeguarding lead should continue to collect factual information in regard to the incident and make sure the Council preserves evidence. The designated safeguarding lead should then decide if the case meets the threshold of harm/risk of harm.
• If the case meets the threshold of harm/risk of harm, the Council should follow the procedures and notify the LADO within one working day. If appropriate, the Council should also notify the police within one working day – or immediately if necessary.
• If the case does not meet the threshold of harm/risk of harm, the Council should take steps to address any conduct or behaviour issues with the member of staff through normal employment practices.
• If the designated safeguarding lead is unclear whether the incident meets the threshold of harm/risk of harm, they may wish to seek advice from the LADO.
20. The Council expects to resolve cases as quickly as possible consistent with a fair and thorough investigation. All allegations should be investigated as a priority to avoid any delay. The time taken to investigate and resolve individual cases depends on a variety of factors including the nature, seriousness and complexity of the allegation, but these targets should be achieved in all but truly exceptional cases.
21. It is expected the Council should resolve:
• 80 per cent of cases within one month;
• 90 per cent of cases within three months; and
• all but the most exceptional cases should be completed within 12 months.

What happened

22. In February 2020 Mr X forwarded to the Council an email he received from one of his daughters in December 2019. In it, she alleged that her foster carer had struck her and that she was not nice to her or her sister. Mr X asked the Council to investigate this.
23. Shortly after, the Council contacted Mr X to clarify his complaint, and it agreed the Council would investigate:
• what happened in 2014 after an allegation of abuse by the children’s foster carer;
• the lack of response to his request for his daughters’ case files;
• why his request for more contact with his children was turned down; and
• his concerns that his daughters’ requests to come back and live with him were ignored and the social worker was blocking his contact with them.
24. In August 2020 the Council responded to his complaint and:
• apologised for what happened in 2014 and confirmed his daughters were removed from the foster carer as soon as the Council received the allegations. The Council also said that it no longer placed children with that foster carer;
• confirmed the contact arrangements had been agreed in court;
• confirmed that prior to the court hearing the social worker shared documents from the latest Looked After Children (LAC) review with Mr X, but the Council asked the social worker to send them again in case Mr X had not received them; and
• said the social worker’s conduct was being investigated by the LADO.
25. Mr X was not satisfied with this response, and in September 2020 he asked the Council to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the process. He also asked the Council to provide him with a copy of the most recent LADO investigation report and the outcome.
26. In December 2020 the Council wrote back to Mr X and said that it would not progress his complaint to a stage two investigation because his daughters did not consent to their records being shared with the investigator. The Council also told him that it would not share the LADO investigation report with him because it was confidential as it contained personal data of individuals who were not part of his complaint.
27. In September 2021 Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council not taking appropriate action against the foster carer after he told the Council they had allegedly struck his daughter.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

28. The Council told us that when Mr X raised concerns about his daughters’ social worker, these were about his gender and age. The Council said it spoke to Mr X at the time and explained the social worker assigned to his daughters was qualified and had a good working relationship with them, therefore it considered there was no need to change their social worker.
29. The Council also confirmed that his daughters were consulted throughout this process, and they did not want the Council to change their social worker. No LADO investigation was launched in response to the concerns Mr X raised about the social worker, because the Council felt that it did not relate to inappropriate behaviour of the social worker.
30. When Mr X shared his concern about the foster carer hitting his daughter the Council referred this to the LADO.
31. The Council accepted that following the referral to the LADO it did not follow the correct procedure, and the investigation was flawed.
32. The LADO did not reach a decision about the allegations Mr X raised, and therefore had no decision to share with him. The Council apologised and said that it asked the LADO to investigate what had happened and provide an update within a month. The Council said that once it had this information it would share it with Mr X.
33. The Council apologised for any distress its actions may have caused Mr X, and offered to pay him £600 in recognition of the impact on him.

My analysis

Concerns about the conduct of the foster carer

34. The Council has accepted it was at fault for not following its safeguarding procedures after Mr X raised concerns about the safety of his daughters. I cannot say what would have happened had the Council acted without fault, but this has caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about whether the Council safeguarded his daughters as it should have done.
35. Additionally, I consider the Council missed the opportunity to realise its fault when it was considering Mr X’s complaint. It told Mr X that it would not share the LADO investigation with him because it was confidential, when in fact no LADO report had been created.
36. The Council’s actions also meant that Mr X spent avoidable time and trouble in pursuing his complaint, firstly through the Council’s complaints procedure and then via the Ombudsman’s service.
37. We have published guidance to explain how we determine remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible, as in the case of Mr X, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment.
38. When we recommend a payment for distress/uncertainty or time and trouble, we only take account of avoidable distress that is the result of fault by the Council. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300.
39. I consider the remedy of £600 the Council has offered is suitable to remedy both the avoidable uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble the Council’s actions have put Mr X to.

Concerns about the conduct of the social worker

40. The Council explained why it decided not to change the social worker that was working with Mr X’s daughters. It also said that it explained its reasons to Mr X at the time when he raised the complaint.
41. In its complaint response to Mr X the Council told him that the social worker’s conduct was being investigated by the LADO, but in the response to our enquiries the Council said this was not the case. I consider this has contributed to the uncertainty Mr X felt as a result of what the Council was telling him. I consider the previously mentioned £600 remedy the Council has offered is suitable to remedy the injustice arising from this fault.
42. The Council said that Mr X’s daughters were asked about this, and both said they wanted to continue with the social worker they had. I find no fault with the Council’s approach as Mr X’s daughters were old enough to be able to give their consent to continue working with the social worker Mr X had complained about.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for its failure to follow its safeguarding procedures after he raised concerns about the foster carer his daughters were staying with, and the distress and frustration this has caused him;
• pay Mr X £600 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and unnecessary time and trouble he experienced;
• carry out a detailed LADO investigation and reach a decision about the allegations Mr X raised. The Council should share the outcome of the investigation with Mr X; and
• share this decision with the officers working in the social care team so that they are aware of the Council’s obligation to follow up on LADO investigations.
44. Within three months of the date of the final decision statement, the Council should review its safeguarding policies and procedures to find out if any changes are needed to prevent the recurrence of the fault identified in this draft decision.

Back to top

Final decision

45. We found the Council was at fault for not following its safeguarding procedures and the Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy any injustice this caused to Mr X. Our investigation is now complete.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

46. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s action in 2014. This is because we expect people to complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of a problem. Mr X knew what action the Council took in 2014 and decided to not to complaint to us then. For this reason I consider this part of his complaint to be late.
47. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not sharing the outcome of the LADO’s investigation with him. This is because the investigation relating to his adult daughter is confidential, and the Council cannot share it with him without his daughter’s consent.
48. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not sharing the details and outcomes of the school’s and the police' investigations into allegations relating to his adult daughter. This is because any such information is confidential, and the Council cannot pass this on without the consent of Mr X’s daughters which it did not have.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman