Summary: Mr Z complains of failings by the Council in dealing with him as the father of a young child, X. There was fault in several matters, though not all. These faults included poor communication and significant delay in dealing with Mr Z’s complaint. These caused him lost opportunity and unnecessary time and trouble as well as a loss of trust in the Council. The Council will apologise, pay Mr Z £805 and place a copy of this decision on X’s social care records.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr Z, complains the Council:
1. Initially dismissed his concerns about contact venues in the borough creating risk to him, then arranged contact at a venue that was risky;
2. Failed to act on a report that his child, X, was out in the rain and cold at 11.30pm;
3. Failed to communicate properly by:

• Failing to answer a question during a drug test in December 2017 and ending the test prematurely, then failing to complete a further test properly in February/March 2018;
• Failing to respond to questions about having his child baptised;
• Cancelling and delaying appointments, not informing him about appointments, and not consulting or informing him when his child needed a general anaesthetic for a scan;
4. Delayed several matters, including conducting a drug test, discharging a care order, moving his child and the child’s mother and arranging a family group conference;
5. Failed to fully refund his costs in attending a programme needed for contact to resume with his child;
6. Took too long to deal with his complaint about these matters; and
7. Sent a copy of a letter that followed the Stage 2 investigation to the wrong address.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr Z’s complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I made written enquiries of the Council. I considered its duties under the Children Act 1989 and the statutory complaints procedure for complaints by or on behalf of children about social care.
7. The original complaint to the Council comprised 14 matters. I have regrouped them as six complaints and added two more, concerning complaint handling and the loss of a document.
8. Matters of data loss are normally for the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO). However, the connection with other matters in the complaint and the Council’s welcome acceptance of fault give grounds to exercise the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider a postal error by the Council.
9. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. Both parties accepted the draft.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr Z is a young father. His relationship with the mother of his infant child, X, ended. He accepted he had used violence in this relationship. The records show his desire to maintain his relationship with X was very strong. To that end, he complied with the instructions of courts and social services, accepted his previous actions had been wrong, and actively sought drug-testing. The complaint concerns the Council’s communications with Mr Z and his actions to promote the relationship between him and his infant son.
11. For each complaint, I will, where appropriate, briefly lay out what should have happened, before saying what happened and whether there was fault. In some points it has not been possible to reach a clear view on the balance of probabilities about what happened.

Complaint a): initially dismissing concerns about contact venues in the borough being risky, then later arranging contact at a risky venue

12. Mr Z was worried about contact venues to see X in Wandsworth due to an earlier traumatic incident in which he was attacked and seriously injured.
13. The records the Council supplied included references in three records from 2017. One, from March 2017, stated the Council was trying to arrange contact at a venue outside the borough. Another, from August 2017 stated Mr Z had not attended contact because he found the venue, which was in the borough, too dangerous.
14. I have seen no evidence the Council initially dismissed Mr Z’s concerns, so I do not find it at fault in this part of the complaint. However, the March 2017 record shows that by August 2017 the Council was aware that Mr Z was worried about risk if he attended contact sessions in the borough. It should not have arranged them there. On the basis the session referred to in August was recent, I find the Council at fault for arranging contact in the borough.

Complaint b): Failing to act on a report that X was on the street in the cold and rain at 11.30pm

15. I would expect the Council to follow up any referral about a very young child being outdoors so late at night. The investigating officer who considered the complaint upheld this matter as the Council provided no evidence.
16. I have seen two references in the records to the issue, or something like it. The first dates from September 2017. It states there was a good reason why the child was out at night. However, it is not clear if this was the same incident, as there is no evidence of checking the date or other details with Mr Z. The second, from May 2018, is an internal email that asks if there has been an answer to this point of complaint.
17. Given that I have seen no clear reference that shows the Council checked the specific details of the referral with Mr Z, I take the same view as the investigating officer and find the Council at fault.

Complaint c): Communication issues

Drug tests

18. I have seen evidence of the drug test Mr Z took in December 2017. When asked to sign that he had understood what he had agreed to, he asked to sign as being under duress because the person administering the test had not answered one of his questions about it. This was refused and the test not completed. The investigating officer found this was fault as Mr Z should have been allowed to sign as under duress. I also find the Council at fault.
19. The records of a further attempt in February 2018 shows the body receiving the test material refused to accept it because Mr Z signed with a cross and a smiley face rather than his initials as required. I have seen a photograph of the sample that confirms how it was signed. It was a reasonable requirement for Mr Z to use a usual signature, so I cannot say the Council was at fault when the sample was rejected.
20. Evidence of the third drug test is limited. It also failed to complete. There is a reference to Mr Z being rude and aggressive, but no corroboration. I can reach no view on this test.
21. I will deal with the issue of delay later.

Questions about baptism

22. I have seen no evidence that shows what questions may have been asked or if the Council responded. I do not therefore find fault. However, I note Mr Z and his ex-partner do not share the same faith and he does not have custody of X. There is no role for the Council in deciding matters of faith where parents disagree. So, even if the Council had been at fault, this could not have decreased the likelihood of baptism.

Cancellations and delays to appointments

23. The evidence here is in the form of correspondence. This shows Mr Z chasing the Council and the Council chasing him at different times in 2017 and 2018. As there are many examples of Mr Z asking the Council what was going on and it is clear the Council did not tell him about some appointments, on the balance of probabilities, I find it was at fault. However, I also note there were repeated chases by the Council and that some of the delays were due to the non-availability of family members. So, I do not find the Council solely responsible.

Telling Mr Z about appointments and consulting about medical matters

24. I would expect the Council to tell Mr Z about all meetings he had the right to attend. I would also have expected it to tell him in advance about any significant planned medical treatment of X and consider his views. This would include operations and/or the use of anaesthetic.
25. Following on from the previous point, there are examples in the correspondence of Mr Z complaining that he kept finding out after the event about decisions social workers took. These included two examples in March and June 2017 of Mr Z saying he had found out about medical procedures after the event. There was also an example of Mr Z complaining in September 2017 that no-one had told him of X’s circumcision. I also note the Council has been unable to tell me what meetings Mr Z missed that he could have attended.
26. The evidence I have seen is sufficient for me to reach a finding on the balance of probabilities that one version of events is more likely than another. I therefore find the Council failed to tell Mr Z in advance about matters he should have known about, or to involve him properly in decisions taken about X. This was fault.

Complaint d): Delays

27. The investigating officer found the Council took too long to arrange the first drug test, to discharge a care order, to move X and his mother and to set up a family group conference. The Council accepted this. I therefore find the Council at fault.
28. Complaint e): Refunding costs
29. Councils have discretion whether to part-fund or fully fund courses. They can also apply eligibility criteria.
30. In this case, Mr Z needed to attend a programme for fathers who had been involved in domestic violence in order to have access to X. This cost £1500, plus £200 for a final report. He did so, attending all sessions and receiving an unequivocally positive report on completion. He told the Council the cost was difficult for him to meet and said all the other men on the course had been fully funded by their local councils.
31. The records include case notes from April 2017 about the Council’s decision. These reported a court had “encouraged” the Council to pay part or all the fees. The Council decided it would pay half the fees and the cost of the assessment, leaving Mr Z to pay £750. It took the view Mr Z paying half would show his commitment to change. The records show the Council later agreed in August 2017 to pay half the remaining balance, leaving Mr Z to pay £375.
32. As the Council had discretion whether to pay part or all the fees, and used that discretion to increase its contribution, I cannot say it should have paid the remaining £375. I do not find it at fault.
33. There are two other issues about costs and funding that Mr Z raised.
34. The first of these concerns refunding transport costs. Mr Z said the Council failed to pay all his travel expenses for contact sessions.
35. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said Mr Z had sent no receipts for travel he wanted reimbursed in 2017. It also provided evidence of payments to Mr Z in late 2016 and early 2017 and copies of travel tickets dated between May and November 2017. These latter total about £55.
36. The Council’s evidence does not support its claim that Mr Z sent no receipts in 2017 as it has sent me screen shots of travel tickets worth about £55. And the payments it made were several months earlier. Without evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude the Council was at fault by failing to refund about £55 of travel costs Mr Z incurred later in 2017.
37. The second issue is whether Mr Z could have enrolled on other programmes for fathers wishing to improve their parenting. However, the eligibility criteria for one of these programmes was recommendation by a social worker. And Mr Z’s social worker took the view in April 2017 that it would be better if he enrolled when X was older and court proceedings had ended. That was a matter of professional judgement, so I do not find the Council at fault.

Complaint f): Delay in complaint handling

38. Mr Z’s complaint was about X and the way the Council organised his contact with X. It was therefore subject to the statutory complaints process for complaints about social care by or on behalf of children. This process has three stages and is laid out in Getting the Best from Complaints 2006. It is mandatory, so councils with children’s social care responsibilities must follow it. A key point in the process is where a complainant is unhappy with the first response, he or she has the right to a second stage, which is an investigation. The timescale for this begins immediately a council receives a request in writing, or after a meeting with the investigating officer if the request is verbal. Councils have 25 working days to send the complainant a report with an adjudication letter by a senior officer. This can be extended to 65 working days (about 13 weeks) by agreement with the complainant where matters are complex. The final stage is a panel, which considers the quality of the investigation at the second stage.
39. Mr Z first complained in June 2017. The Council responded in three weeks, which was prompt. It is unclear if Mr Z made another separate complaint, but the Council sent him an acknowledgement at the end of July. There was a meeting in early August. At this point, Mr Z had not asked for the second stage, so it was not fault to suggest a meeting.
40. Mr Z emailed to ask for a second stage investigation on 7 August 2017 as he was still not satisfied after the meeting a few days earlier. However, the Council did not start the investigation as it should have done, but instead set up another meeting. The date of this second meeting went back several times owing to members of Mr Z’s family not being available. It happened on 17 November 2017. The Council only agreed to the second stage investigation on 3 January 2018, almost five months after it should have started. I do not find Mr Z contributed to the delay in starting the investigation because the Council should not have waited for the outcome of a meeting to do so. I find the Council at fault.
41. The investigation, once started, also took more than twice as long as it should have done, even if Mr Z had agreed to an extension, only ending when the Council wrote to him on 19 July 2018.
42. In total, the Council took more than a year to deal with the complaint at the second stage. It has offered no explanation for this, other than saying delays can happen and the chief officer needed more time. For the avoidance of doubt, the time taken by the adjudicating officer seems to be only a small part of the total.
43. For the reasons above, I find the Council at fault for failing to move Mr Z’s complaint to the second stage, as statutory guidance says it should have done, and for taking too long to deal with his complaint.
44. I note that there was no delay by the Council when Mr Z asked for a third stage panel in March 2019.

Complaint g): A postal error

45. The Council accepted that it sent the report of an independent person about the conduct of the second stage investigation to the wrong address. This was fault. It apologised to Mr Z for this, offered him £300 and told him he could approach the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO).

Summary of fault found

46. As the complaints are varied and I have found fault here and there, I am summarising what went wrong for the ease of the reader.

• The Council arranged a contact session in August 2017 in Wandsworth when it knew Mr Z was worried about the risk he might face in the borough.
• It failed to record a specific response when Mr Z reported X had been on the streets at 11.30pm in the rain and cold.
• There was delay in arranging a drug test and in taking other actions. Mr Z was also prevented from completing the first drug test because he was not allowed to sign as under duress when he had asked a question that was not answered.
• The Council’s communication with Mr Z, though regular, was inadequate and failed to tell him about important things in X’s life or to consult him.
• The Council failed to refund some travel expenses Mr Z incurred.
• It failed to follow statutory guidance in dealing with Mr Z’s complaint and there was serious delay in the second stage investigation.
• Finally, it sent sensitive information to the wrong address.

47. Mr Z has a strong feeling that the Council has a negative perception of him as a person and is biased against him. What I have seen in the correspondence does not show any direct evidence of that. But the combination of the faults found, particularly in failing to inform and consult him, give the impression that the Council failed to respond properly to Mr Z’s consistent and legitimate wish to play as full a role in his son’s life as the courts permitted.

Injustice caused by fault

48. I am not able to say that, but for the fault found, Mr Z would have had more and better contact with X in the first years of his life. But it is possible he would have had more contact if the Council had had kept him better informed and not delayed matters. That loss of opportunity is injustice to Mr Z.
49. The failings I have identified have also caused Mr Z to lose trust in the Council. Given he is also likely to have to work with it for at least some time in the future if X’s case remains open to social services in the borough, that loss of trust is injustice to Mr Z.
50. The Council’s delayed complaint handling has caused Mr Z unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
51. I also find Mr Z has lost out on reimbursement of travel receipts the Council received amounting to about £55.
52. I am not able to say at this date what injustice if any has been caused to X. It is not possible to know what relationship he may have with Mr Z in the future.

Agreed action

53. To remedy the injustice to Mr Z caused by fault, the Council will, within a month of the final decision:

• Apologise to Mr Z for the fault found, except where it has already apologised to him; and
• Pay Mr Z £805, made up of £500 for his loss of opportunity and his understandable loss of trust in the Council, £250 for his time and trouble in pursuing the delayed complaint and £55 for the travel receipts not reimbursed.

54. To guard against any potential future injustice to X, the Council will place a copy of the final decision on X’s social care records within a month of its issue. This is so that, should X ever request copies of his records when he is of an appropriate age, he may gain whatever benefit the information contained in the final decision provides for him.
55. To prevent a repeat of the faults found the Council will, within a month of the final decision:

• Remind relevant staff that unless there is a safeguarding or other good reason not to do so, both parents of a child should be informed about forthcoming meetings about the child and consulted about any significant decisions that have to be taken; and
• Remind relevant staff that where a complainant requests in writing a second stage investigation in a children’s social care complaint, this must begin immediately, and that a meeting cannot be used as a substitute or a pre-requisite.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have upheld the complaint and closed the case as the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman