Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to write him a letter to acknowledge he was safeguarding his children even though he was breaching a court order. When he made complaints, the Council failed to deal with them appropriately. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to apologise and make a payment to him and to ensure people answering complaints are appropriately trained.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complained the Council failed to write him a letter to acknowledge he was safeguarding his children by not returning them to their mother, even though this breached a court order. He also said the Council failed to send him meeting minutes or notes from social work visits.
2. When he made complaints, he says the Council failed to deal with them appropriately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. I considered the information submitted by Mr C with his complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I have referred to various sections of the Children Act, 1989. I sent Mr C and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took comments into account before issuing my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mr C has three children who previously lived with their mother. On 31 July 2018, one of his children disclosed they had been assaulted by the mother and Mr C refused to return the children on the advice of the police and social services. This was against the terms of a court order, which set out contact arrangements.
9. A social worker became involved and Mr C said this officer made between ten and fifteen visits to see the children. Mr C did not see any reports of these visits or any assessment of him, the mother or the children.
10. During this time, Mr C was getting contacted by the mother’s solicitor requesting the children’s return given he was in breach of the order. Over a period of seven months, Mr C is reported to have made 112 calls to the Council. He wanted a letter from the Council to acknowledge he was keeping the children safe. He also wanted copies of meeting and visit notes.

Complaints

11. Because he did not get the letter that he asked for from the Council, Mr C made a complaint on 25 February 2019.
12. He asked for the following:
1. For the complaint to be fully investigated and appropriate documentation provided;
2. For a summary of the notes of the visits made by the social worker;
3. Acknowledgement of the time he had spent waiting to receive the documentation he had asked for;
4. For the Council to accept his wishes and feelings had not been properly conveyed; and,
5. For a gesture of goodwill payment to acknowledge the efforts he had gone to for a response.

What happened and what should have happened

13. Once the Council was aware of the allegation made by the child about being assaulted by their mother, it was aware of a risk of potential significant harm. Under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where children are thought to be at risk of significant harm, or to have suffered significant harm, Councils have a duty to investigate.
14. The Council investigated and identified the children as Children in Need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This means it considered the children ‘unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired, without the provision of services’. However, the Council did not respond to Mr C’s request for a letter acknowledging he was safeguarding the children by not returning them to the care of their mother. Mr C tells me he did not get copies of Child in Need meeting notes over this time either. This is fault. It caused Mr C time and trouble making what the Council also accepted as 112 calls over a period of months to get answers.
15. This also meant Mr C was in a potentially vulnerable position; looking after the children against the terms of a court order even though he says the police and social services appeared content with him doing so. However, Mr C could have chosen to go to court himself to amend the order, which would have regularised the children’s position. Mr C did not need a letter from the Council to do this because the court would have ordered an assessment to see where the children should live. On the balance of probabilities, the children were in a vulnerable position because they were not living where they had been and may have been without their belongings. They may also have wanted some form of contact with their mother, supervised appropriately.
16. The Council is at fault for not writing a letter, causing Mr C time and trouble chasing this up. Although, on the balance of probabilities, Mr C contributed to his own injustice by failing to go to court immediately, this does not excuse the Council failing to provide the letter he wanted or advising why it could not, or would not, produce one,

Complaints outcomes

17. Mr C received a response to his complaint on 27 March. I have considered each head of complaint here.
18. It is important to note that central to Mr C’s complaint was the Council had failed to write a letter acknowledging that he was safeguarding the children appropriately by not returning them to their mother. The Council’s response is silent on this, which is fault causing Mr C distress as he expected the Council to resolve matters.

For the complaint to be fully investigated and appropriate documentation provided.

19. The Council’s response is not clear or detailed, which is fault. The officer was in a good position to speak to people involved with Mr C’s children (including the police) even if the original social worker had left. The failure to do this meant Mr C was not satisfied his complaint had been ‘fully investigated’. I consider he had good grounds to feel this way. This is fault and it caused Mr C distress as he wanted the Council to address his concerns.

For a summary of the notes of the visits made by the social worker.

20. The Council’s response says: “In reference to this it is distressing for parents that their children are spoken to alone by a social worker, however this is a national requirement that social workers must follow in order to allow children to feel safe to express their wishes and feelings. After reading the case notes from other professionals, your children did not present in any distress in any way, and the role of the social worker is to ensure that all safeguards are in place and that parents are following what is expected from them via the Child in Need Plan. I am satisfied that there was no intention on the social worker’s part to cause your family any distress”.
21. Mr C had not complained the children were seen alone (as this is something he expected) and had not complained about needing to follow the child in need plan. He did not argue the children, or himself, were distressed by visits. His complaint was that he had not received a summary of visit notes although an officer had visited his home on a number of occasions. The Council’s response does not mention this and this is fault. It caused Mr C time and trouble because of the failure to answer.
22. Mr C told me that information about the visits was attached to the Council’s response but was distilled into 5 or 6 paragraphs, which he did not think was sufficient to convey the children’s wishes and feelings over the 7 months the social worker had been involved in his case. This is fault and it has caused Mr C time and trouble trying to obtain this information, especially since the Council’s complaints response does not address what he was complaining about.

Acknowledgement of the time he had spent waiting to receive the documentation he had asked for.

23. The Council’s response says; “I was surprised…as after each Child in Need meeting a copy should have been given to parents…I will now endeavour to get this information to you”. There should have been an effort made to identify why Mr C had not received this information at the time and how the Council would put this right. The failure to do this is fault. The Council should have also acknowledged Mr C’s complaint about the time he had waited for information to be provided to him. This is fault and it caused Mr C distress.

For the Council to accept his wishes and feelings had not been properly conveyed

24. The Council’s reply says; “It is correct to say that resolving matters of this nature is the responsibility of the parents concerned. It goes without saying that if these matters can be resolved amicably then this is in the best interests of all concerned. Quite often such matters are resolved through court proceedings with the parents concerned accessing the necessary legal advice”. There is no evidence Mr C was given this advice at an early stage; he was not responded to at all. Furthermore, Mr C was complaining that his wishes and feelings had not been taken into account by the social worker, which the complaints response does not address. This is fault and it led to distress for Mr C who felt the Council had not taken his complaint seriously enough.

For a gesture of goodwill payment to acknowledge the efforts he had gone to for a response

25. The response in relation to this head of complaint is unclear; “I do agree that communication is very important and I can see that you have found this whole experience negative and distressing. I will raise this with our social worker team in order to share areas for improvement regarding communication whilst still having the safeguarding aspect in mind”. This says nothing about what ‘areas for improvement’ had been identified by the officer responding to Mr C. It did not say whether a goodwill payment would be appropriate or not. This is fault. I note the Council later wrote to Mr C in April to say it did not accept he should have a goodwill payment although it did not say why. There is no evidence his complaints were considered before this decision was reached. This is fault and it caused Mr C distress.

Current events

26. The Council has now been asked, by the court, to do a report under Section 7 of the Children Act, 1989. A Section 7 report sets out where the Council believes a child should live and what contact they should have with both parents. I cannot consider Section 7 reports as they are produced for the court and need to be challenged in court if they are inaccurate. If Mr C considers that the children’s, or his own, wishes and feelings have not been taken into account, he needs to tell the judge.
27. I am not going to ask the Council to provide a letter to Mr C for this reason. I have suggested he make a request under the General Data Protection Regulations to have access to the records the social worker made when visiting the children at his home. He can refer the matter to the Office of the Information Commissioner if he remains dissatisfied.

Agreed action

28. For the Council to apologise to Mr C for failing to send a letter to him as requested and for failing to answer his complaints appropriately. The Council should do this within a month of the date of my decision.
29. It is asked to make a payment of £100 for distress and £100 for time and trouble. The Council should do this within two months of the date of my decision.
30. For the Council to ensure both parents receive copies of Child in Need meeting minutes where they should do so. It should use the learning from this case to identify why Mr C did not receive minutes and tell me what actions it will take to make changes to its processes. It should send Mr C any minutes he does not have. It should do this within three months of the date of my decision.
31. For the Council to ensure officers who answer complaints are appropriately trained. It should do this within four months of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have made a finding of fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman