Summary: Miss E and Ms F complained how the Council communicated with them as professionals supporting looked after children. They also complained the Council maliciously reported their nursery to Ofsted. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to communicate with Miss E and Ms F properly. It also failed to be open and transparent with them about a referral to Ofsted. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Miss E and Ms F complained how the Council communicated with them as professionals supporting looked after children. They say the Council failed to keep them updated and provide them with relevant information. They add an officer’s communication with them was rude and aggressive. They also complained the Council maliciously reported their nursery to Ofsted.
2. Miss E and Ms F say the Council’s actions have affected their business and caused distress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
4. 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.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Miss E and Ms F. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Miss E, Ms F 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

Looked after Child

9. A Looked after Child (LAC) is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a local authority under section 20 of Children Act 1989. The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order. The child becomes looked after when the local authority has accommodated them for a continuous period of longer than 24 hours.
10. LAC reviews oversee fulfilling the care plan, oversee the child’s progress and decide any necessary changes.

What happened

11. This chronology includes an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
12. Miss E and Ms F own a nursery (Setting A).
13. The court granted the Council an interim care order for two children. This is a temporary order which grants councils shared parental responsibility for a child. The Council made a referral for one of the children (Child B) to attend Setting A.
14. Miss E and Ms F provided the Council with an update on how Child B was settling into Setting A the following month.
15. The Council organised a LAC review meeting for Child B and their sibling. It did not invite Miss E or Ms F to the meeting.
16. A court hearing took place to consider where the children should live. Miss E and Ms F attended the hearing. The judge decided to remove the children from their parents. Child B stopped attending Setting A.
17. A Council officer (Officer B) had a telephone conversation with Ms F. Miss E and Ms F complained to the Council the following day. They said Officer B’s communication was unprofessional, rude and aggressive. They also said the Council had failed to communicate with them as professionals.
18. Another child (Child C) started attending Setting A. The Council was involved in safeguarding Child C.
19. Ofsted completed an unannounced visit to Setting A. It said it had received concerns Setting A was not meeting some regulatory requirements.
20. The Council responded to Miss E’s and Ms F’s complaint. It apologised if they found Officer B’s communication unprofessional and upsetting. It said this was not her intention. It also apologised for not responding to some of their contact in a timely manner.
21. Miss E and Ms F were dissatisfied with the Council’s response and so they referred their complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. They said the Council maliciously reported Setting A to Ofsted. They raised a further complaint and said the Council delayed providing them with necessary information about Child C.
22. The Council responded to the complaints. It apologised it delayed providing them with information about Child C. It said Officer B did not intend to cause any distress, but it apologised if any of the conversations with her appeared rude/upsetting. It said it failed to invite them to the LAC review meeting due to an oversight, and there was little recorded evidence of communication with them when Child B was attending Setting A. It apologised for this. It said it would implement a service improvement to ensure it carefully checks invitees to meetings. It also said it did not make referral to Ofsted because of their complaint.

Back to top

Analysis

23. I have looked at the available records of Officer B’s communication with Miss E and Ms F. I have seen no evidence she was rude, aggressive, or unprofessional. However, I note the Council has repeatedly apologised to Miss E and Ms F if any of the conversations with Officer B appeared to be rude/upsetting.
24. The Council accepted it delayed providing Miss E and Ms F with information about Child C. It apologised for this. It also apologised it failed to invite them to the LAC review meeting for Child B and that there was little evidence it regularly communicated with them when Child B was attending Setting A. I agree the Council was at fault, and this caused Miss E and Ms F some frustration. However, the Council’s apologies are satisfactory to address their injustice and it is line with our guidance on remedies. The Council has also confirmed it will review its procedures to ensure invitees to meetings about looked after children are carefully checked and educational settings are invited where appropriate. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it confirmed it has addressed the issues about the lack of communication with staff in a newsletter article and in team meetings. I do not recommend anything further.
25. Miss E and Ms F asked for the social workers involved in their complaint to face disciplinary action. We are not a disciplinary body and therefore we do not have the power to dismiss social workers. If Miss E and Ms F have concerns about the conduct of the social workers, they should contact Social Work England, the social workers’ professional body.
26. Miss E and Ms F say the Council maliciously reported Setting A to Ofsted after they made a complaint. The Council did not confirm whether it had made a referral to Ofsted when it responded to their complaint. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has confirmed it did make the referral to Ofsted. It denies it was done maliciously or a result of Miss E and Ms F’s complaints. It says it sent the referral because it had concerns Miss E and Ms F did not recognise the issues relating to Child B and their sibling. It says the records do not evidence when it sent the referral. It has recognised there is a need for greater transparency and staff should inform professionals when they make a referral to regulatory bodies such as Ofsted.
27. The Council does not have a copy of the referral to Ofsted or evidence when it sent it. I do note however Ofsted received the referral the following week after Miss E and Ms F raised their complaint. I have seen a copy of a case note which was created nearly two months before the complaint. The officer stated they were concerned how over involved Setting A was with Child B’s parents. The officer said they had raised the concerns with a manager. Therefore, it is clear the Council had some concerns many weeks before it received the complaint. I consider, based on the evidence available, it is more likely than not the Council made the referral to Ofsted because of its genuine safeguarding concerns and not because of any malicious intent or because it received a complaint. I do however agree it should have been more open and transparent with Miss E and Ms F about the referral/its concerns. Its failure to do so has caused them some frustration, upset and shock. The Council should apologise to Miss E and Ms F. It should also implement service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. By 4 September 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss E and Ms F for the injustice caused by its failure to be open and transparent with them about the Ofsted referral.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the need to be open and transparent with professionals when they make a referral to a regulatory body (such as Ofsted). Staff should also clearly record on the system when they have made the referral and why they have made it.

29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss E and Ms F an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman