Summary: Ms V complained the Council failed to treat her and her family appropriately in relation to contact with her youngest child, W. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to carry out a number of actions such as making an apology, amending its records, and ensuring its contact centre is fit for purpose by carrying out an assessment to check the centre is in line with standards expected by the National Association for Contact Centres as the relevant professional body.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms V, complains the Council has failed to enable her to actively participate in her daughter’s care and has failed to review existing arrangements appropriately. She says:
1. She has not been provided with information, to which she is entitled, about her daughter W;
2. The Children in Care Team has exceeded its authority by denying her specific information about W’s school and her schooling and prohibiting interactions with the school;
3. The Local Authority has acted unreasonably in response to her request to be represented by a friend at meetings;
4. The Local Authority has been unhelpful in not providing her with notes of her family’s supervised contacts with W;
5. There has been a failure to adequately involve her in decision making;
6. The room that is used for supervised contact is not fit for purpose; and,
7. Actions and decisions made by the Social Worker appear to evidence bias.
2. Ms V was also unhappy with the way the Council investigated her complaints and asked the Ombudsman to consider this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. 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.
8. 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

9. I considered the information provided by Ms V with her complaint. I spoke to her representative on the telephone. I analysed the information from the Council’s complaints responses. I sent Ms V and the Council a copy of this draft decision and took comments received into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. W is a looked after child, under a full care order, who lives with her father (Ms V’s ex-partner). As the resident parent, W’s father has responsibility for W’s day-to-day care. W has supervised contact with her mother once every fortnight. W also has monthly contact with two older sisters who live with Ms V. Ms V was subject to a non-molestation order, which restricted her contacts with W’s father and with the school W attended.
11. Ms V was unhappy with the actions of the Council. She felt she was not sufficiently involved in W’s life and that the Council was putting more restrictions on her than the court had done. The Council considered Ms V’s complaints at Stage One and Stage Two of the statutory (children’s) complaints process, after which Ms V came to us.
12. A statutory Stage Two investigation demands the appointment of an investigating officer and an independent person to oversee the investigation. Where we consider the Stage Two investigation is sufficiently robust to enable us to rely on the information it contains, we use this as the basis to consider complaints. This is what I have done in this case although I have raised specific points of concern too.
13. As a result of the Stage Two investigation, one of Ms V’s complaints was upheld, one was partially upheld and the other five complaints were not upheld.
14. I shall consider each of Ms V’s complaints in turn and look at the Council’s complaints handling.

Ms V has not been provided with information, to which she is entitled, about her daughter W

15. Ms V told the Stage Two investigation the Council failed to provide her with information such as W going on holiday, health issues, hobbies, interests and education. She said information about holidays has tended to be given after they had taken place.
16. There is no evidence to show information about W going on holiday has been given ‘after’ W returned. The Stage Two investigation considered a holiday to India arranged at short notice due to the illness of W’s paternal grandfather and a holiday to Germany. It was satisfied Ms V was given information prior to both. It was not reasonable for Ms V to expect voice contact through W’s holiday even though she was missing face-to-face contact (although I consider the missed face-to-face contact should have been, and was, made up). Activities that W was participating in were things that could be talked about when W returned home; Ms V did not need details beforehand or during the trip as this would fall under ‘day-to-day care’, which was the responsibility of W’s father.
17. Information about W’s ‘health issues, hobbies, interests and education’ could, at least partly, be relayed by W at contact sessions. It was not unreasonable for the Council to consider this. Each Looked After Child review meeting would also involve considering W’s health and education such as her health needs and educational attainment. For example, Ms V knows the school put a programme of ‘reading recovery’ in for W, which significantly improved W’s reading.
18. Ms V says she is not necessarily receiving school reports. The Council should ensure she gets reports as soon as possible after they are issued. Ms V also wants school photographs of W. The Stage Two investigation said the name of the school should be withheld from Ms V due to the non-molestation order she was subject to at the time and reports would generally include school names, as would school photographs. Now this is no longer the case (that Ms V has a non-molestation order) it would be appropriate for the Council to re-visit this and provide her with school photographs. I note W’s social worker asked W’s father for photographs of W on holiday following their return from India. It is not fault by the Council if these were not provided.
19. The Stage Two investigation concluded this complaint was not upheld. I consider it had good reason to say this.

The Children in Care Team has exceeded its authority by denying Ms V specific information about W’s school and her schooling and prohibiting interactions with the school

20. At the time of the Stage Two investigation, Ms V was subject to a non-molestation order stopping her from going to W’s school ‘except by prior invitation of the school authorities and with the knowledge of (W’s father)’.
21. The Stage Two investigator said, at paragraph 2.17: ‘On the question of Ms V being prevented from having any contact with W’s school, the non-molestation order made in July 2017 makes it clear that this is a court requirement. Although Ms V considers that she can attend the school if invited, this relates to a previous non-molestation order which expired in July 2017. This investigation considers therefore that the Local Authority’s decision not to allow Ms V to visit W’s school is consistent with the court judgement’. This is not true. The July 2017 non-molestation order says she cannot go ‘to (named school) or any other school attended by W between the hours of 8am and 6pm during term time except by prior invitation of the school authorities and with the knowledge of the applicant (W’s father)’. It is not clear whether the investigating officer saw the non-molestation order or, if he saw it, whether he misread it. This is fault. The investigating officer should have satisfied himself of the wording of the non-molestation order given it was so central to Ms V's argument. This fault caused Ms V distress and the Council should apologise.
22. The Stage Two investigation noted Ms V had written to the school wanting a meeting to support W’s education. Ms V might have expected it to write back but she received nothing. Looking at the case records provided to me by Ms V, the school asked the Council for advice. The social worker wrote to the school to say it should tell her if she had queries to ‘take it up with…children’s services’ and the school decided to take this approach.
23. Ms V says the Council gave incorrect advice to the school as it wrongly interpreted the non-molestation order as not allowing contact with the school. The Council should apologise for the distress this caused. The Stage Two investigation noted the non-molestation order was concerned with ‘attending’ rather than ‘contacting’ the school. The Council should work with the school going forward to decide how best to communicate with Ms V and the Council should apologise for not doing that sooner.
24. The Stage Two report said; ‘The investigation does not consider it appropriate for Ms V to currently attend PEP meetings, parents evenings or school events such as sports days as these are held at the school’. This is a textual error and, thus, is fault. Ms V could have been invited to attend such events by the school and, with knowledge of W’s father, attended. The Council should apologise for the distress this fault caused and put a note on the record accordingly.
25. Ms V says she has never broken the non-molestation order. I have seen no evidence to suggest she went to W’s school while the order was in place.
26. The Stage Two investigation did not uphold this complaint but, I consider on balance, this complaint should be upheld. There is evidence that ‘contact’ with the school was interpreted as being wrong by the Council even though this was not a court-imposed requirement.

The Local Authority has acted unreasonably in response to Ms V’s request to be represented by a friend at meetings

27. The Stage Two investigation upheld this complaint and I agree. It concluded the Council ‘inappropriately delayed’ agreement to Ms V being represented by a friend at meetings.
28. This is fault and the Council should apologise for the distress it caused. Ms V was accompanied by her daughters at several meetings; there is no evidence she was deprived of support. No further remedy is necessary.

The Local Authority has been unhelpful in not providing Ms V with notes of her family’s supervised contacts with W.

29. Individuals can make requests for their personal data under the General Data Protection Regulations (2018). If a body refuses to comply then citizens have recourse to the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO).
30. I understand Ms V is now receiving contact notes although there was a delay in her doing so. It is not unreasonable that notes should be considered retrospectively i.e. that they should be sent to her after they have been presented to the Council. If a contact supervisor was critical of a parent, they might place themselves at risk by sharing notes immediately. Notes might also alert the Council to necessary action prior to the next contact session, such as the need to suspend contact if necessary. This is action only the Council could take. Ms V would be able to ask ICO for a view if she remains dissatisfied so I am not investigating this further.
31. Contact has to be in the child’s best interests. On that basis, if the Council felt it was not in a child’s best interests (for any reason) they would be able to suspend it.
32. The Stage Two investigation noted; ‘Regardless of whether W may wish to see her mother for more than three hours per fortnight, her overall welfare needs to be to be the main consideration of the Children in Care Team….it is in W’s best interests for contact to remain at its current level for the foreseeable future’. This view would be unlikely to change if W had an advocate because it is not W’s decision to make. Similarly, the Council was able to set behavioural expectations for contact such as Ms V not taking W to the toilet unsupervised or not speaking to W in a language not understood by the contact supervisor.
33. The Stage Two investigation noted Ms V’s comments that ‘A solicitor has been engaged with a view to increasing the frequency of contact (as) she does not consider that the (Council’s reasons for not increasing it) are valid’. If Ms V disagrees with the contact arrangements that have been put in place the Court is the right place to challenge them.
34. Although the Council had thought W’s sisters had allowed W to speak on social media with Ms V during contact, the Council is now aware this was not the case. The message had been recorded so was not a ‘live’ conversation. Ms V’s representative tells me the Council’s records have not been changed. This is fault causing distress to Ms V and the Council should amend its records to make this clear.
35. Ms V’s representative also told me there was conflicting evidence about the behaviour of W’s sisters at contact on 16 December 2016. There was a suggestion their contact finished at 1pm (which the time I understand their contact generally starts), that they thought they lost a key and came back (at 2.20pm) to look for it and then different accounts of whether the room was left untidy or not.
36. The different accounts that are apparently unresolved is fault. To remedy the distress this has caused Ms V, the Council should now consider the events of that day (if there are still concerns) and set them out to W’s sisters in writing to enable them to respond in full. I can see no reason why W’s sisters would have been allowed in the contact centre if they had no cause to be there. Ms V says there could be no suggestion this was an issue in relation to behaviour in contact as it was outside contact time. Even if Ms V had contact with W on the same afternoon, the girls should not have been allowed in if there was any danger W would see them.
37. The Council should also be explicit about when contact in the community might be considered (supervised as appropriate, if necessary) and what behaviours it would expect.
38. W’s social worker accepted that any contact cancelled by the Council would be made up in terms of time and money for food that had been bought and would spoil. Any contact that couldn’t take place because of Ms V’s or W’s sisters’ illnesses would not be made up. There is no fault in the Council doing this. Similarly, if W arrived late then time would be added on but if Ms V arrived late she would not get extra time. I note the IRO disagreed and said contact due illness should be made up. There is no evidence of Council fault. Ms V says additional time is not added on when W is late; the contact supervisor could be asked to note this and also time to be made up on another occasion.
39. The Stage Two investigation partially upheld this complaint because of the delay in Ms V receiving the contact notes. The delay is fault and the Council should apologise for the distress this caused to Ms V. No other remedy is appropriate as Ms V could have gone to court to ask for more contact, at which point the Council would have been asked to provide contact notes. Alternatively, Ms V could have asked ICO to become involved.

There has been a failure to adequately involve Ms V in decision making

40. The charity, Child Law Advice, says: “The resident parent makes the general day-to-day decisions concerning the upbringing of the child and this should be done with limited interference from the other parent. These decisions will be decisions about how the household will function and the child’s daily routine. If the other parent has Parental Responsibility, the major decisions concerning the upbringing of the child should be made together. Such decisions can include, for example, where the child should attend school, what religion the child should be brought up with (and) the child’s name”.
41. In this case, because the Council holds a full care order, it would also be involved in decision making for W.
42. Because the wording of the non-molestation order suggested Ms V should not necessarily know the name of any other school the child attended (apart from the one she knew W was attending at the time), she would not have been a part of that decision. Ms V says this was not ‘open minded, fair or even (a) rational approach’ but this is a merits argument and not one I can consider. As the non-molestation order could be interpreted in this way, it is not fault it was interpreted in this way.
43. Ms V is part of Looked After Child Reviews and can express her views within those meetings. She also has contact with W.
44. This complaint was not upheld at Stage Two and I agree.

The room that is used for supervised contact is not fit for purpose

45. The Stage Two investigation commented that the room generally used for contact at the contact centre was ‘not ideal for family contact’. This was echoed by the contact supervisor. I consider the failure to ensure the room (and other rooms that might also be used for contact) was always suitable, on every occasion, is fault.
46. A specific recommendation was made at the end of the Stage Two report. This said the Council should ‘make(s) arrangements within one calendar month…for a full review to be undertaken of the room…used for supervised contact’ and other actions to ensure suitability.
47. To remedy the fault, in terms of the distress experienced by Ms V when the rooms were manifestly unsuitable, the Council should carry out an assessment, in line with what would be carried out by the National Association of Contact Centres (NACC), as the relevant professional association and take the remedial actions recommended. This should ensure the rooms within the building that can be used for contact (including the kitchen area) are fit for purpose. For somewhere that accommodates vulnerable children and adults, it is not acceptable that (on one occasion) Ms V says a worker had to turn on an oven in order to get heat. The Council should apologise to Ms V for the poor conditions she has experienced in the past.

Complaints handling

48. The Council responded to Ms V at Stage One on 25 June. She was unhappy with the Council’s response but the Council did not engage the Stage Two investigating officer and independent person until 26 November 2018. This is fault causing distress to Ms V as she wanted the Council to investigate her allegations thoroughly. The Council should apologise for the delay.
49. The Stage Two was completed within the statutory timescale of 65 days maximum (there was a delay in getting the statement of complaint agreed) including the issue of the adjudication letter.
50. Ms V then came to us almost immediately. Although the Council could have offered a Stage Three panel, as Ms V approached us so quickly after the results of the Stage Two investigation, I am not finding fault.

Agreed action

51. For the Council to apologise to Ms V for the distress caused by the fault I have identified in this statement. The Council should also amend its records where I have highlighted inaccuracies.
52. For the Council to set out its understanding of the events of 16 December 2017 in writing given there is disagreement and seemingly contradictory information as to what happened at contact between W and her sisters on that day. It should explain to all parties when contact in the community might be considered and specify the expected behaviours.
53. For the Council to work with the school going forward to decide how best to communicate with Ms V.
54. For the Council to ask the contact supervisor to record whether any time was missed and thus needs to be made up on a different occasion because W has been late.
55. For the Council to carry out an assessment on the contact centre, in line with an assessment by NACC, to ensure it is fit for purpose and to put the remedial actions in place. I note it has changed the location of contact to another building at this time. It should tell me what actions it will take.
56. For the Council to consider whether it gives appropriate information to Stage Two investigators given the misunderstanding of Ms V’s non-molestation order.
57. The Council is asked to carry out these actions within three months of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have found evidence of fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman