Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure into his concerns about safeguarding referrals relating the care of his children. The Council delayed completing the complaints procedure, which was fault. The Council investigated the complaints properly, but delayed carrying out some of the recommendations which was also fault. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation into his safeguarding referrals and concerns about a social worker and his ex-wife’s care of their children. Mr X said the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns.
2. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure however he is unhappy with the outcome. Specifically Mr X is unhappy around discrepancies and changes to child protection documents. He says the Council failed to give an explanation around this during the complaints process.
3. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress, frustration and led him to a breakdown in trust with the Council.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint and considered information he provided.
11. I considered information from the Council including the stage 2 investigation report, the stage 3 panel report and the relevant adjudication letters.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The statutory complaints procedure

13. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
16. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
17. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
18. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
19. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
20. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Child in Need

21. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
22. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;

• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled

23. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

Section 47 Enquiries

24. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
25. If a council considers a child is at risk of significant harm, it will hold an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). An ICPC is a meeting which focuses on the needs of the child or children in question and where evidence of the risk to children can be gathered and shared. It may decide a child protection plan is needed. If so, review conferences will be held to see what progress has been made and what further action, if any, is necessary.

What happened

Background

26. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
27. Mr X has two children with his estranged wife Ms Z. There is a history of domestic violence and some alcohol and drug abuse. The family have a history of social care involvement since 2011 and the children have previously been subject to children protection plans and are currently classed as Children in Need (CIN) and are on CIN plans.
28. Mr X and Ms Z have been separated since 2018. Mr X has had supervised contact with the two children as part of a safety plan since 2019. However, he began having regular unsupervised contact by early 2020. Since 2020 a social worker (SW1) started working closely with the family due to numerous section 47 enquiries and safeguarding concerns.
29. Mr X has raised numerous safeguarding concerns about how Ms Z has cared for the two children without any action taken. Mr X believed this was because SW1 was in collusion with Ms Z and as a result overlooked the safeguarding concerns. Mr X said this caused him to lose trust in the Council and this was the basis for his complaint.

Mr X’s complaint

30. Mr X complained to the Council in December 2022. He complained the Council had not investigated his safeguarding concerns about his two children and that SW1 should not be allocated to the family as they were not impartial. Mr X said his children were being left a risk.
31. The Council responded to Mr X at stage 1 of the statutory children’s complaints procedure in January 2023. It found no evidence SW1 was in collusion with Ms Z and Mr X’s concerns did not warrant a section 47 investigation. It apologised for some communication issues and for not passing on various minutes and plans from meetings.

Stage 2 investigation

32. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to a stage 2 investigation in March 2023. The investigating officer (IO) issued their report at the end of June 2023 and investigated four points of complaint. These included:
1. The Council not taking seriously or acting on multiple safeguarding issues raised by Mr X about his children.
2. SW1 being allowed to continue working with the family and his request for a different social worker being ignored.
3. The Council failing to allow him access to all of the paperwork regarding his children. Mr X said the copies provided to him were incomplete and not in the correct format.
4. The Council accusing Mr X of not engaging with the social work team which delayed progress to begin unsupervised contact with his children.
33. The IO did not uphold complaints 1 and 2. They found no evidence to suggest Mr X’s safeguarding concerns were not taken seriously. The IO found the Council took appropriate action for each individual incident reported. With regards to complaint 2 the IO found SW1 took each safeguarding report seriously and offered support to both Mr X and Ms Z. The IO found no evidence that SW1 favoured Ms Z over Mr X. The IO said Council staff were aware Mr X had refused to communicate with SW1 and processes were in place to allow Mr X access to a social work manager. At the time of IO’s report SW1 had been removed as the allocated social worker.
34. The IO upheld complaint 3 and had found various discrepancies on child protection paperwork and child protection conference papers provided to Mr X. This included missing pages, different formatting, incomplete chronologies and markings on copies provided to Mr X which were not on the original copies. The IO found that relevant officers interviewed as part of the investigation were unable to explain the discrepancies. Documents require authorisation for a ‘rollback’ from a service manager to edit and change documents and this was not given. The Council was unable to provide an explanation or factual reason why copies of records provided to Mr X were not in their original form.
35. The IO partially upheld complaint 4 finding evidence that Mr X had welcomed social care staff into his home but also evidence Mr X had not always engaged.
36. The IO recommended the Council apologise to Mr X for the upheld complaint elements. They recommended the Council provide Mr X with accurate copies of the relevant documents and address the issue of the incomplete documents.
37. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair, thorough and proportionate investigation of the complaints raised and sufficient evidence was gathered to make the findings.
38. The Council wrote to Mr X with its stage 2 adjudication letter towards the end of July 2023. It accepted the recommendations and agreed with the upheld elements of the complaint. The adjudicator said there was no evidence however that the document discrepancies had a bearing on any decision making.

Stage 3 appeal panel

39. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council to escalate the matter to a stage three panel in July 2023. Mr X said he still had not received all of the documents in their original form and alleged the documents he had been provided with were falsified.
40. The stage 3 panel met at the end of September 2023. It agreed that complaints 1 and 2 were not upheld. The panel agreed complaint 3 was upheld and was concerned Mr X still did not have full copies of the relevant documents. The panel was also concerned the Council had not offered sufficient explanation about the discrepancies. The panel commented Mr X had lost trust in the Council due to the lack of documents and the poor and inconsistent copies of the ones it had provided. The panel disagreed with the IO’s finding about complaint 4. It found Mr X had not always been compliant with safety plans and court orders around contact with his children but said that was different to engaging with social workers.
41. The panel made various recommendations including:
• Providing Mr X with all relevant documents immediately.
• For the Council to identify and rectify the issues around the original documents and investigate why it happened.
• Provide Mr X with a specific letter of apology for the upheld complaints.
• Offer Mr X an independent assessment around whether unsupervised contact should continue.
• Offer Mr X a communication plan.
• Consider whether financial redress was necessary.
42. The stage 3 adjudication officer wrote to Mr X at the end of October 2023 and accepted the panels findings and recommendations. It agreed to investigate the discrepancies around the documents and share the outcome with Mr X by December 2023. It said officers would hand deliver all documents by the end of October. The officer confirmed Mr X had a new social worker as a point of contact and was invited to monthly CIN meetings. The officer offered Mr X £300 in recognition of the upheld complaints.
43. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

44. The Council said it accepted it had played a part in the relationship breakdown between it and Mr X. The Council admitted it had not always followed through on agreed actions and providing documents to Mr X which had led to mistrust. Since the conclusion of the complaints process a new social worker and team manager had worked closely with Mr X to ensure regular and consistent communication. It has also hand delivered full copies of the documents to him.
45. The Council said it should have taken more action to provide Mr X with answers about the document discrepancies during the stage 2 investigation and it was sorry for the delay in doing so.
46. The Council said it had now investigated the discrepancies and found the main cause was due to inputter errors including some copy and pasting which had not worked. There was no evidence that the documents had ever been rolled back for change either with or without authorisation. The Council said outcomes and recommendations were not affected by the document discrepancies.
47. The Council said Mr X was now having unsupervised contact with the children so no new assessment was required. It confirmed the communication plan and apology letter had been sent to him along with an offer of £300 redress which Mr X had refused.

My findings

48. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
49. The stage two investigation and stage three panel review were properly conducted, albeit there was a delay of 38 working days at stage 2 and a delay of 17 working days in holding the stage 3 review panel. This was fault and I have made a recommendation below to remedy the frustration this caused. However, the IO reviewed and considered relevant case records as evidence, met with Mr X and carried out interviews with relevant officers. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. The stage three panel independently considered Mr X’s concerns and changed one of the findings from partially upheld to upheld. There was no fault in the how the Council considered the complaints so I accept the findings.
50. The complaints process identified some areas of fault, the substantive part being about discrepancies in documents provided to Mr X. The recommendations at stage 2 and stage 3 were appropriate to remedy the injustice caused by the upheld complaints.
51. The Council has accepted it took too long to complete the agreed actions of providing Mr X with full copies of the documents and investigating the cause. The Council agreed to carry out these actions in July 2023 following the stage 2 investigation however, it took until well into 2024 before this was complete. There is no evidence the Council shared the conclusions of the investigation into the document discrepancy with Mr X. All of this was fault and caused Mr X additional distress and frustration on top of that already caused by the upheld complaints.
52. I acknowledge the distress and uncertainty the document discrepancies have caused Mr X which contributed to the breakdown in relationship between him and the Council. However, there is no evidence the discrepancies would have changed the outcome of his safeguarding referrals or the contact with his children. The Council’s investigation shows the cause was down to poor inputting and copy and pasting between documents. I have made an additional recommendation to ensure the Council puts measures in place to prevent this happening to others in the future.
53. The Council has put in place a communication plan and new social workers with Mr X and he is now receiving unsupervised contact with his children. It has also now provided all of the documents to Mr X. I am therefore satisfied the remaining recommendations from the statutory complaints procedure have been carried out.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action.
1. pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused to him by the Council’s delays in completing both stage two and stage three of the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. pay Mr X £600 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in carrying out recommendations following both stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. This payment includes the £300 the Council has already offered in recognition of the injustice caused by complaints upheld through the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
3. write to Mr X or offer him a meeting to fully explain the outcome of the Council’s investigation into the discrepancies in the documents disclosed to him during the scope of this complaint.
4. remind relevant staff to use caution when copying and pasting information between social care documents. It should use this case to highlight the pitfalls of using copy and paste.
5. explain how it intends to quality assure social care documents going forward.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman