Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to provide him with his ‘approved list’ or inform him which children he could have contact with, with ‘the express approval of social services’ (as per the wording of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order). It also failed to give proper direction to another council as to what information to provide to him. There is evidence of Council fault and the Council has agreed to apologise, to make a payment for time and trouble and to ensure its procedures are clear.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr Y, lives in the Council’s area. He says the Council failed to consider whether his brother’s children could be added to an approved list of children he could have contact with and failed to send him a copy of this approved list.
2. Mr Y says, before he asked for contact with his brother’s children, other children should already have been placed on an approved list.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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.
5. 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

What I found

6. Mr Y was convicted of sexual offences. He has a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, which states he is ‘prohibited from having or seeking contact or any communication with any child under the age of 16yrs other than…with the permission of that child’s parent or guardian, that person to be made aware of his convictions and with the express approval of social services for that area’.
7. On 7 September 2018, Mr Y asked the Council for a copy of his ‘approved list’ of children he could have contact with. He also asked the Council for children to be added to the list at the same time. At the time, the children he wanted the Council to add were living in another council’s area.

Mr Y’s approved list

8. The Council did not respond to this part of Mr Y’s 7 September email. The failure to do this is fault and it caused Mr Y time and trouble as he had to come to the Ombudsman to get an answer. The Council should apologise and make a payment to reflect this. Mr Y was entitled to know whether he had approval for contact with any child, even if the Council had no information to show him. The Council could also have told Mr Y why it would not provide him with a list.
9. The Council says if Mr Y told the Council he wanted approval for contact with children, it would ask the parent of the children to contact it. This would show the parent was aware of the nature of Mr Y’s convictions, in line with the requirements of his SHPO. The Council would then carry out an assessment to identify whether it was appropriate to give its ‘express approval’ to contact.
10. Mr Y told me contact had been approved between him and his sister’s children. The Council initially told me this was not the case as no assessment had been carried out and it was not asked for its approval. Mr Y then provided me with information from his sister saying her social worker had approved contact between her children and Mr Y even though no assessment had been carried out. This lack of clarity is fault and it has caused time and trouble for Mr Y (and his family) in trying to understand whether he could have contact with the children or not. The Council has agreed to apologise and make sure that social workers understand the need to carry out assessments in these circumstances.
11. Mr Y said he could have gone to prison if someone had reported he was having contact with the children without an assessment having been completed. However, Mr Y had good reason to think contact had been approved as he had evidence of this. The Council has since carried out assessments, which are the subject of a new complaint.

Direction to another council

12. The Council told Mr Y, in its response to this part of his 7 September email, that it could not assess whether he could have contact with children in another council’s area. Instead, the request would have to be sent to the other council. The Council could have given Mr Y its contact details; however, it seems to have told Mr Y it would forward his request on 11 September.
13. The Council later told Mr Y it ‘would have sent’ this to a specific email address; but, even on the balance of probabilities, this is not evidence the email was sent. The other council says it did not receive it. I cannot reach a finding on this matter. I would not expect the Council to have followed up any lack of response to its email; it would not need or expect a response given this was not a formal referral. The actions of the other council are not matters for this complaint.
14. Mr Y is unhappy I cannot make a finding but I do not know (and cannot know) whether there was fault by the Council failing to send the request or with the other council not receiving it.

Agreed action

15. For the Council to apologise for the distress it caused and make a payment of £200 for Mr Y’s time and trouble in failing to send him a copy of his ‘approved list’ of children that he could have contact with or explaining why it would not and in failing to be clear about his ability to have contact with his sister’s children. The Council should do this within two months of the date of my decision.
16. For the Council to ensure social workers are aware that assessments need to be carried out before contact can be agreed. The Council should amend its procedures within three months of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have found evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed a remedy to this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman