Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his complaint and address his concerns about its handling of contact limits applied to his family. The Council recognises some delay. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for its handling of the Child in Need procedure which caused distress and inconvenience to the complainant and his grandchildren.

The complaint

1. In November 2017 we found the Council had failed to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the Child in Need procedure for his grandchildren. We recommended the Council consider the complaint. Mr X complains the Council failed to:
• Properly and without delay complete its investigation into Mr X’s complaint under the statutory complaints’ procedure;
• Fully consider and address all the concerns Mr X raised within that statutory complaints procedure and ensure it amended errors in its records.
2. Mr X says this caused delay from 2015 when the actions he complained about occurred impacting on him and his grandchildren. Mr X wants the Council to recognise the impact this has had, review procedures and compensate his family for the impact on them.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We normally expect someone to refer their complaint 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken to Mr X and reviewed the information presented with his complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and read its responses;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance and policy;
• Shared my draft decision to enable the Council and Mr X to comment on it and reflected on comments received when reaching this final decision.
8. 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 the final decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

The law, guidance and Council policy

9. A child can become a ‘child in need’ in different ways including:
• The Council removes a child from child protection plan and switches to a ‘child in need’ case.
• A child protection conference decides a child’s case does not meet the threshold of significant harm, but the child still needs some help.
• Following a safeguarding referral, the Council decides after an early assessment to deal with the case as a child in need.
10. The Children Act 1989 defines a child in need at Section 17 (10 and (11) as a child who:

“is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority…

(b)his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or

(c)he is disabled…”

11. The Act says family: “…in relation to such a child, includes any person who has parental responsibility for the child and any other person with whom he has been living.”
12. The law also imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. It must promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. The whole assessment procedure should only take 45 working days.
13. Guidance issued by the government helps councils understand what government expects from assessments and how to deal with complaints (‘Working together to Safeguard Children’ and ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’).

Children’s Services statutory complaints procedure

14. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the stage 2 investigation decision, they can ask for a stage 3 review by the Review Panel (the Panel). If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
15. The statutory guidance says stage 2 investigations should take 25 working days, but the Council can extend this to 65 working days (about 13 weeks) where a complaint is complex. Councils must tell complainants if an investigation is likely to take more than 25 days and explain the delay. The complainant has 20 working days to ask for a review by the Panel. The Council then has 30 working days to convene and hold the Panel. The Panel has 5 working days to issue its findings and the Council has 15 working days to respond to those findings. The maximum time taken therefore should be no longer than about 27 weeks.
16. Under government guidance councils do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to complain arose. However, there is a presumption in favour of accepting the complaint. Government guidance gives councils discretion to consider a complaint if it is still possible to consider it effectively and efficiently. In exercising their discretion councils should consider if it is unreasonable to expect the complainant to have complained earlier.

The first complaint to the Ombudsman and decision

17. In 2016 Mr X complained to the Council about the Child in Need procedures followed by social workers concerned about his grandchildren Y and Z, from March 2015. Mr X’s third and eldest grandchild, Q, is not the subject of our investigations. Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his concerns, and so Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman. In our decision of November 2017, we found the Council had failed to properly consider exercising its discretion to consider the complaint in 2016. We recommended the Council should now investigate the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure beginning within one month of our decision.

What happened

History of complaints

18. In June 2014 Y’s school suspended him and he moved to live with Mr X under a private arrangement with Y’s mother. Y successfully re-engaged at school.
19. In March 2015, Mr X says Y’s mother refused to allow Y to return to Mr X’s home after her weekend contact visit. Mr X says Y’s progress at school faltered, declined and he left mainstream education in July 2015.
20. Following allegations made against Mr R (Y and Z’s father) the Police arrested Mr R and released him on bail in February 2015. The bail conditions imposed on 28 February 2015 prevented Mr R having any unsupervised contact with his children. A referral to the Council resulted in it starting child protection procedures. The Council’s children’s services team undertook an assessment of Y, Z and Q. The Council decided the children had suitable safeguarding and it did not need to take further child protection measures. Instead, the Council decided to transfer the children to its Child in Need procedures for support.
21. Following the court’s discharge of an order restricting Mr R’s contact with another person, the Police amended the bail conditions on 27 March 2015. The conditions now allowed Mr R to see his children under Council supervision (conducted by its children’s services team). Mr X says in the Council’s case notes for 30 March 2015, Council officers say they cannot facilitate this contact. Mr X says this shows the Council knew the bail conditions had changed. Mr X says the Council did not allow and arrange supervised visits until 2 June 2015. Mr X says the children did not see their father for 66 days which in his view is a long time.
22. In May 2015, the Council called a multi-agency strategy meeting and reviewed all information gathered since February 2015. The meeting noted the court had bailed Mr R until 12 May 2015. The meeting decided the Council could support the family and safeguard the children through a Child in Need plan.
23. The Council says once the Police relaxed the bail conditions, it needed to assess whether Mr R posed a risk to his children. That included whether he understood the boundaries to keep around the children before the Council offered supervised contact. The Council says it could not offer the contact earlier without completing this assessment.
24. The Council did not tell Mr X about Child in Need meetings held in March, May, or June 2015. Mr X says this shows Council officers deliberately excluded him. The Council invited Mr X to the Child in Need meeting in July 2015, but Mr X sent Mr R instead. The Council refused to allow Mr R into the meeting saying a court order meant he could not attend a meeting that may include the person protected by that order. Mr X says the court discharged the order in March 2015 and so it no longer applied. Mr X says had the Council researched the facts in July 2015 it would not have made this mistake because the order’s duration is a matter of public record. Mr X believes this shows bias and a lack of diligence.
25. Records show the Council’s children’s social care service arranged supervised contact with the family from June 2015 inviting Mr R’s sister to act as supervisor. The Police cancelled all bail conditions on 2 July 2015 and emailed the Council with that decision. However, Mr X says the Council refused unsupervised contact until December 2015. This Mr X says deprived the children of unsupervised contact for forty-two weeks.
26. In September 2015, the Council held a Child in Need Review attended by Mr X and Mr R. The meeting decided to continue with contact between Mr R and his children supervised by his sister while assessments continued.
27. In October 2017, the court granted Mr X a Child Living Arrangements Order and all three children now live with him. Mr X said he applied to the courts because the Council had failed to offer him support or resolve the parenting difficulties shown by the children’s mother. In commenting on my draft decision, the Council says Mr X told the Council he did not need any support and refused that offered.
28. The Council ended its involvement in January 2018.

Complaint to the Council

29. Mr X says the Council did not follow the complaints procedure properly or comply with timelines. The final panel hearing took place in March 2019 which Mr X says is too long given the procedure began in November 2017. Mr X says the Council did not fully investigate his concerns.
30. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint which it summarised under ten headings. On 23 January 2018 it wrote to Mr X with its Stage 1 decision. The Council upheld fully or in part allegations of secrecy by social care services, failure to respond to correspondence, and failure to address enquiries. The Council did not uphold complaints of errors in reports sent to the Family Court. It did not uphold complaints of failure to give priority to the children’s needs, lack of due diligence by staff and bias toward the maternal family.
31. On 1 March 2018 Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at Stage 2. On 18 September 2018, the Investigator’s report upheld complaints in full or in part. Those upheld included finding the Council failed to invite Mr X to CIN meetings and, to correct errors in reports. The Investigating Officer did not investigate or uphold some complaints. These included allegations the Council refused Mr R entry to a meeting after the courts had lifted an Order affecting him. Further it did not uphold the complaint Mr X had to go to court twice due to the lack of support offered to him by the Council.
32. Mr X felt the Stage 2 decision did not fully address all his concerns and so asked the Council to put the complaint to the Panel at Stage 3 of the procedure.
33. On 25 February 2019, the Panel issued its decision.
34. The Panel upheld Mr X’s complaint the Council had failed to tell him about Child in Need Meetings in March, May, and June 2015. The Panel decided good practice by social workers would include ensuring they invited Mr X to meetings to hear his views. The Panel said the Council had underestimated Mr X’s important role and continuing contact he had while the children lived with their mother. As a main carer the Panel believed Mr X had information the Child in Need meetings may find valuable. Mr X believes his absence may have affected the meetings’ decisions.
35. The Panel upheld complaints the Council’s reports contained errors and that a strategy meeting linked two serious matters which happened fifteen years apart. Mr X says this shows the Council failed to diligently research issues and again this may have led to different decisions. The Panel recommended the Council keep a list supplied by Mr X of the errors he found in its reports with those reports. The Council cannot alter the records because since 2015 the Council has changed the electronic recording system. Anyone looking at the record in future would see the notes correcting the record. Mr X provided a list. However, he says the Council says he only gave one example of errors when he gave a 13 page or item list. Mr X says one serious error occurred in the minutes of a meeting where the minute taker recorded Mr X as the person responsible for a serious offence. The Council admitted the error and apologised.
36. The Panel partially upheld the complaint the Council had not offered support to Mr X resulting in him seeking help from the courts.
37. Mr X says overall the complaints procedure never dealt with his main concern, how all of this had affected his grandchildren, in particular Y.
38. The Panel noted the Investigating Officer had difficulty in getting important documentation from the Council and could not interview all key staff. It recommended the Council act to address these faults.
39. Mr X said the Council failed to offer him support or properly show what it could do to act on his concerns about the welfare of the children while with their mother. The Panel found the Council failed to explain its role and powers or explain what action Mr X could take.
40. The Council offered Mr X £150 as a ‘goodwill gesture’. However, Mr X says this is not enough to recognise the impact of the Council’s failings on him, Z or Y. Especially, in Mr X’s view given Y and Z did not see their father without supervision for nearly a year.

Council’s response to my enquiries

41. In response to my enquiries the Council says the time taken to consider the complaint did not impact on the family. It says the review of the Child in Need Plan in September 2015 showed the family making good progress. The Council has shown the family had support. This includes oversight by a reviewing officer. The Council says all agencies involved agreed the Child in Need Plan provided an appropriate and proportionate support for the family’s assessed need.
42. The Council says it did not receive referrals showing concerns about the family except one which it dealt with accordingly. The Council says it dealt with the children’s needs in Child in Need meetings and case conferences which would pick up on any concerns over school attendance. While the children lived away from Mr X the Council says it did not have grounds for starting child protection measures or care proceedings. The Council says it based that judgement on professional assessments not on bias against Mr X or Mr R.
43. In commenting on my draft decision, the Council says it always had the children’s best interests as the focus of its support. Its records show it intervened as and when professional officers from various disciplines thought necessary. The Council says it always recognised the important role Mr X played in his grandchildren’s lives and offered specialist services to help Mr X with his role which it says he refused.

Analysis was there fault leading to injustice?

44. My role is to consider how the Council responded to the needs of the family and dealt with Mr X’s complaint. It is not part of my role to say which services the family needed that is a matter of professional judgement. However, where I find fault, I must consider the impact of that fault and what the Council should do to address it.

Late complaints

45. The events which are the subject of the complaint occurred from 2015 onwards. We have investigated these events exercising our discretion to look at the issues. The Council’s investigation did not finish until January 2018. We received the complaint in July 2019 and have decided the events are not so long ago that we could not reach a supportable sound decision.

Parts of the complaint that lie outside jurisdiction

46. Part of Mr X’s complaint to the Council included alleged faults in reports for the Family Court and the refusal to share information citing as authority the Data Protection Act. These lie outside my jurisdiction and so I cannot comment on them.
47. Reports to a Family Court are matters on which only the courts can decide.
48. Complainants alleging the Council shared information contrary to the Data Protection Act should refer their concerns to the Information Commissioner. They should also refer any challenges to decisions not to share information under the Data Protection Act or Freedom of Information Act to the Information Commissioner.

Statutory complaints procedure

49. I have considered the way in which the Council followed the statutory complaints procedure and I find it at fault in:
• Failing to complete the procedure within the statutory time limits taking from 1 March to 18 September 2018 to complete Stage 2 which exceeds the 65-day extended time limit;
• Not presenting full documentary evidence to the investigation and the lack of any follow up to trace former employees to invite them for interview or to present a written statement.
50. This led Mr X to doubt the procedure had fully considered and addressed his concerns and to reject the offer of £150 in recognition of the impact on him.

The complaints

51. Having considered the complaints presented by Mr X I find the Council at fault for:
• failing to assess in a timely way how and under what supervision it could provide contact following the change in bail conditions in March 2015. Although case notes say the Council’s officers could not facilitate supervision, the Council has not explained that view or the delay this caused in arranging supervised contact.
• failing to include Mr X in some Child in Need meetings and for the seventeen- week delay in providing him with copies of minutes of those meetings.
• failing to properly consider Mr X’s evidence of errors in the minutes and information presented and to record them in the record without first insisting he make a formal complaint.
• Referring to the Order affecting Mr R as a current Order and therefore a reason for excluding Mr R from a Child in Need meeting. As the children’s father the Council should have properly considered inviting him to attend as well as allowing him to attend at least part of the meeting on the day.
• The confusion over why the Council continued with supervised contact until December 2015 without any satisfactory explanation or advising Mr X or Mr R how they could ask for a review of the contact decision.
• Failing to fully explain why the Council did not consider Y and Z needed protecting through the use of public law proceedings initiated by the Council or advise Mr X on the steps open to him to secure Y and Z’s residence with him. Mr X believes this demonstrated a lack of support after he expressed concerns.

Injustice arising from fault

52. What impact did these faults have on Mr X and Y and Z? Mr X says Y has suffered because the Council did not offer him or the family support. I cannot say what support Y and Z needed between March 2015 and October 2017 when the court granted an order resolving where the children should live. The court considered the family’s needs and how best to resolve them, so they are outside my jurisdiction.
53. However, the faults identified had an impact on the family in:
• Putting Mr X to avoidable significant time and inconvenience in following the complaints procedure;
• Delaying unrestricted contact for Y and Z with Mr R who had played an important role in their lives thus far;
• Denying Child in Need meetings information Mr X could provide, as someone closely involved in supporting the children’s welfare, if invited to attend or to comment on the minutes of meetings. But for this fault we shall never know if professionals may have reached different or more nuanced decisions;
• Preventing Mr X from understanding the limits of the support he could expect from the Council through its use of public law proceedings or how he could address the situation.
54. We shall never know if but for the faults the family may have had supervised contact earlier than June 2015 moving to unrestricted contact earlier than December 2015. It may be contact would have taken as long because social workers continued to have concerns about Mr R’s understanding of what may be appropriate in front of the children. We will never know. I cannot say what impact all this has had on Y’s general development, but it has caused understandable concern for Mr X who believes it has had a marked and lasting impact.
55. I must consider if the £150 offered by the Council fully recognises the impact on the family of the faults identified both by me and by the Council’s stage 3 Panel. I would recommend £150 to reflect the impact of the complaints upheld at Stage 1 of the complaints’ procedure. However, I must consider the further upheld faults and the delay to the complaints’ procedure. Therefore, I find the sum offered does not reflect the injustice that has arisen. The remedy I recommend in paragraph 56 I believe more accurately reflects the injustice experienced.

Recommended and agreed action

56. To address the injustice arising from the faults I have identified I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Give a written apology to Mr X for the impact of those failings on him and Y;
• Attach to its records the full list of errors in its reports or minutes Mr X produced and invite him to view the record to confirm it has done this;
• Commit to considering amendments put forward by families rather than referring them to the complaints procedure which extends the period without those corrections unnecessarily;
• Commit to ensuring staff make all records and themselves available to any investigation into complaints and to approach officers who have left the Council’s employ to provide information;
• Pay Mr X £500. This recognises the inconvenience caused by the faults and delays. It recognises the impact on Mr X, Y and Z, of never knowing whether the family may have achieved unsupervised contact some months earlier. Thus, reducing the impact on Y and Z of that separation.

Back to top

Final decision

57. In completing my investigation, I find the Council at fault and it has agreed to the remedy recommended in this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman