Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of herself and her son, Mr B, about the way the Council handled safeguarding for Mr B, and Ms X’s subsequent complaint. She says safeguarding decisions were based on inaccurate information. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the way it handled Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr B, and has met with them to discuss annotating its records. The Ombudsman does not uphold the other parts of Ms X’s complaint. This is because we find no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complains on behalf of herself and her now-adult son, Mr B. She complains about the way the Council handled her complaint about safeguarding for Mr B. She complains that:
1. her complaint was not properly addressed through the statutory complaints process;
2. the Council did not direct parts of her complaint to other services;
3. the Council has not completed the agreed recommendations;
4. the Council should take her complaint about social workers to the regulator;
5. the Council did not provide Mr B with the services it should have; and,
6. she disagrees with the Council’s decision to put Mr B on a child protection plan.
2. Ms X says that safeguarding decisions were based on inaccurate information. She says that inaccurate information was given to other Council departments.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Ms X has made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about similar issues. She complained to the Ombudsman in July 2018 during the statutory complaints process (also complained about in this complaint) on the basis that the Council refused to complete the third stage of the statutory process.
4. The Ombudsman found fault and recommended that the Council complete stage three of the complaints process. The Ombudsman issued the final decision in that case in December 2018.
5. In this case I have investigated the complaints process and outcome as a whole. However, I will not look at the Council’s actions that relate solely to complaints handling before December 2018. The final section of this statement expands on this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
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)
9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
10. 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)
11. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
12. 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

13. Mr B has given written consent for his mother, Ms X, to represent this complaint on his behalf.
14. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.
15. I have considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Safeguarding

16. Under the Children Act 1989, councils have a duty to safeguard children and promote their welfare. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to the council’s children’s social care department and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so. Referrals can be made by the child, agencies involved with children such as health and schools, family members, friends, neighbours or members of the public.
17. Under section 47 of the Act, if a child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm a council must make enquiries to decide if any action needs to be taken to safeguard that child or promote that child’s welfare. This is usually referred to as a child protection investigation or section 47 enquiries.
18. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and determine whether protective action is required. If the information gathered under section 47 substantiates concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an Initial Child Protection Case Conference (ICPCC).
19. The ICPCC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include making a recommendation that the child should be subject to a child protection plan.
20. After the ICPCC there will be one or more review child protection conferences. These consider the progress of action taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued.

Children’s social care complaints

21. The government published statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, which sets out a three-stage procedure that councils follow when considering certain complaints about children’s social care services.
22. At stage one, the council considers the complaint and should try and resolve the complaint as quickly as possible.
23. At stage two of the procedure, the council appoints an independent Investigating Officer to investigate the complaint, and an Independent Person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. The council will appoint a senior manager to adjudicate on the findings.
24. The Investigating Officer’s report (stage two report) should include details of their findings (‘upheld’ or ‘not upheld’), and recommendations on how to remedy any injustice to the complainant.
25. The purpose of the council’s adjudication on the Investigating Officer’s report is to give its response, its decision on each point of the complaint, and to identify any action to be taken (with timescales).
26. The complainant can then ask the council to convene an independent review panel. This forms the third stage of the complaints procedure. The review panel will consider the adequacy of the independent stage two investigation and will decide whether the complainant’s desired outcomes have been addressed.
27. The review panel should make recommendations that provide practical remedies and creative solutions to difficult situations. It should identify any injustice to the complainant where complaints have been upheld and recommend appropriate remedies. The panel should also recommend service improvements for the council, if appropriate.
28. If a council has investigated something under this statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless he considers that the investigation was flawed. Instead, he will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

What happened

29. Ms X and her son, Mr B (now an adult), moved to this area in summer 2017. The Council received a safeguarding referral for Mr B in October 2017. It made section 47 safeguarding enquiries.
30. In December 2017, Ms X complained to the Council about the information it had about Mr B, amongst other things.
31. In January 2018, Mr B was made subject to a child protection plan after the Initial Child Protection Case Conference (ICPCC).
32. Also in January, the Council sent its stage one response to Ms X’s complaint. It partially upheld some parts of Ms X’s complaint.
33. Ms X asked that her complaint be dealt with at stage two. In March, Ms X agreed a statement of complaint with the Investigating Officer (IO). This had 22 parts of complaint, and included complaints about information from other agencies about Mr B, the safeguarding process, poor communication, and failure to provide support for Mr B.
34. The IO submitted her stage two report in May. She did not uphold 17 parts of the complaint. She made no finding on two parts, and partially upheld three parts.
35. The IO noted that Ms X wanted an apology for any upheld complaints. The IO said that none of the complaints were fully upheld. The IO recommended to the Council that if it becomes apparent that a case is stalling, it should hold a meeting with a senior member of staff to find a way forward.
36. In June, the Independent Person submitted his report. He agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendation.
37. Also in June, the Council sent Ms X its stage two adjudication on the IO’s findings. The Council largely agreed with the IO’s findings and agreed that three parts of the complaint were partially upheld.
38. The Council disagreed with two of the IO’s findings. It found that one part of the complaint the IO had not upheld should be partially upheld.
39. The Council also partially upheld another part of the complaint. The IO had made no finding on this point. The Council apologised for the lack of clarity.
40. The Council also apologised for any actions that had inadvertently added to Ms X’s anxieties. It gave reassurances about training staff which Ms X had asked for. The Council agreed with the IO’s recommendation.
41. Ms X asked the Council to progress her complaint to stage three of the complaints procedure.
42. In July, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman (this is the previous complaint, referred to in paragraphs three and four).
43. In December, the Ombudsman found that the Council should arrange for Ms X’s complaint to be dealt with at stage three.
44. The stage three review panel was held in February 2019. The panel sent Ms X its outcome letter a week later. The panel said it had reviewed all 22 points of Ms X’s complaint because none had been fully upheld.
45. The panel upheld seven parts of the complaint, partially upheld eight parts, made no finding on three parts, and did not uphold four parts. For the parts of the complaint that were upheld or partially upheld, the panel made six recommendations. For nine parts of the complaint that had been upheld or partially upheld, the panel made no recommendations.
46. The six recommendations the panel made were about improving communication, improving timeliness of responses, and meeting timeframes for safeguarding matters.
47. The panel noted it could not recommend that the Council correct its records, and signposted Ms X to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). It commented that the IO’s stage two investigation and report were “poor quality”.
48. In March, the Council sent its response to the stage three review panel’s findings. It agreed with the panel’s findings and recommendations. It said Ms X’s complaint had identified some areas of its work with her that should have been better. It apologised for this and for the impact on Ms X and Mr B.
49. The Council acknowledged the panel’s comments about the IO’s investigation and report. It said it would discuss this with the IO. The Council also said its stage two adjudication was not to the standard it would expect and apologised for this. It said it would develop a programme to quality assure stage two reports and adjudications to make sure they were sufficiently robust.
50. The Council agreed there had been a common thread throughout which had been inaccuracy of record keeping. It said it was not to the standard it would expect. It apologised for the impact this had on Ms X and Mr B. It said it would annotate its records to reflect Ms X’s and Mr B’s views and would do this by the end of April.
51. The Council said its communication with Ms X had not been to the standard it would expect. It apologised for the anxiety this had contributed to. It said it would remind staff of the importance of good record keeping and communication with families.
52. In June, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman (this complaint).

Analysis

Handling and addressing the complaint

53. Ms X complains that her complaint was not properly addressed through the statutory complaints process (part a of the complaint). She says the Investigating Officer (IO) did not sufficiently investigate her complaint, and that the Council’s response to the complaint did not recommend a re-investigation of the complaint.
54. As I have said in paragraph 28, if a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless he considers that the investigation was flawed.
55. In this case, the stage three review panel highlighted the poor quality of the IO’s stage two investigation and report.
56. I have considered the IO’s report and the stage three panel’s findings. I agree with the panel that 15 of Ms X’s 22 points of complaint should be upheld or partially upheld.
57. Where Ms X has made further, specific complaints (parts b to f of this complaint), I have considered these below. I have considered these because of the flaws in the stage two investigation.
58. It is the Ombudsman’s role to look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three review panel.
59. The Council agrees that the stage two investigation was poor quality. It says it has raised this with the IO who will no longer investigate complaints for the Council. It says it now has four new customer relations officers who quality assure stage two reports and stage two adjudications.
60. I find that this is appropriate action for the Council to take to address the issue of poor-quality stage two investigations and adjudications.
61. I would add, however, that the Council’s stage two adjudication shows it did not simply accept what the IO found, but instead took its own analytical approach. It upheld more parts of Ms X’s complaint than the IO. I find this is evidence of some good practice.
62. The guidance says that stage three review panels should identify any injustice to a complainant where a complaint has been upheld and recommend appropriate remedies.
63. The panel upheld or partially upheld 15 of Ms X’s 22 parts of the complaint but only gave six recommendations, all of which were service improvements. I find that the panel failed to consider injustice caused to Ms X or Mr B as it should have done. This is fault.
64. However, I find that the Council’s response to the stage three panel identified injustice, which was the impact of its failings on Ms X and Mr B. It apologised for the areas of work that should have been better (apologised for the impact this had), that record keeping was not to the standard expected (apologised for the impact), that communication was not to the standard expected (apologised for the anxiety this contributed to), and that the stage two adjudication was not to the standard expected.
65. I am satisfied that these apologies are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X by the faults.
66. It is my view that it would have been clearer if the Council had specifically said in its stage three response that it had considered injustice.
67. It is also my view that it would have been clearer if this response had individually responded to each of the 22 parts of the complaint, rather than group its responses together. This would have shown more clearly that the Council had considered each of the 22 parts of the complaint.
68. However, I find that the Council ultimately addressed all parts of Ms X’s complaint. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault for this.

Directing Ms X’s complaint to other services

69. Ms X complains that the Council did not direct parts of her complaint to other services (part b of the complaint). Ms X says she complained about inaccurate information from the youth offending service, police and another council. She says she copied her complaint to the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) but did not get a response.
70. LSCBs were abolished in summer 2018 when the Children and Social Work Act 2017 came into force. This Act says councils and other statutory agencies are to make their own arrangements for safeguarding children.
71. Given that LSCBs were abolished, and the Council addressed Ms X’s complaint, I do not find fault with the Council for the LSCB not responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council was the appropriate body to consider Ms X’s complaint.
72. Further to this, complaints about inaccurate information should be made to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Ms X says she has complained to the ICO. This is the appropriate body to complain to about inaccurate records.

Completing the agreed recommendations

73. Ms X complains that the Council has not completed the agreed recommendations (part c of the complaint). She says she has not been contacted about annotations the Council said it would make to its records.
74. The Council’s response to the stage three review panel’s findings said it would make annotations to the records. This was not a recommendation made by the panel. However, the Council accepts it did not make these annotations or communicate this to Ms X by the end of April 2019, as it said it would.
75. The Council says it did not do this because it was short staffed, following a transformation programme within the Council. The Council met with Ms X in November 2019 to discuss annotating the records. It says Ms X is to give the Council evidence that the other council has changed it records, because this will impact on the annotations. It says once Ms X has the information, it will meet with her and Mr B to discuss how to annotate the records.
76. I find the Council at fault for not annotating its records with Ms X’s and Mr B’s views, as it said it would. This should have been done by the end of April 2019 and has not yet been done. This has caused Ms X and Mr B uncertainty, which is injustice.
77. Regarding the stage three review panel’s recommendations, the Council says there was a delay in completing these. It says this got overlooked because of the transformation programme. This is fault. However, I do not find that this fault caused Ms X or Mr B injustice. This is because the recommendations were service improvements and therefore had no direct impact on Ms X or Mr B.
78. The Council has now revised the way it works with families and has shown the Ombudsman these changes. I am satisfied that the panel’s recommendations have now been met.

Complaint about social workers

79. Ms X complains that the Council should take her complaint about social workers to the regulator (part d of the complaint). Ms X questions why the Council has not referred social workers to the regulator given the identified failings.
80. Social Work England is the regulator for social workers (used to be known as the Health and Care Professions Council). Anyone can make a complaint to Social Work England.
81. The Council is under no obligation or duty to refer social workers to Social Work England. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
82. Ms X tells me she has complained to the Health and Care Professions Council. This is the appropriate way to raise complaints about social workers.

Provision of services

83. Ms X complains that the Council did not provide Mr B with the services it should have (part e of the complaint).
84. The Council says that Mr B was placed on a child protection plan in January 2018 and removed from the plan in April 2018 because he declined support and did not engage with the plan.
85. The Council says in April 2018 it referred Mr B and Ms X to Early Help. It says Mr B and Ms X did not agree with the support Early Help had identified. It says Mr B only wanted help with employment.
86. The Council says it referred Mr B for help with education, training and employment but he refused the help.
87. I find that the Council offered appropriate support but Mr B, and to a lesser extent Ms X, did not engage or take up the offer of support. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Child protection plan

88. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to put Mr B on a child protection plan (part f of the complaint). Ms X says the social worker fabricated information to meet the threshold for the Initial Child Protection Case Conference (ICPCC). She says Mr B would not have been put on a child protection plan if this had not happened. She says the decision was based on inaccurate information.
89. The Council’s stage one response says the social worker had concerns about Mr B which led to the ICPCC. These concerns included that Mr B was at risk because he had been stabbed twice and had spent time in a young offenders’ institute for knife possession.
90. Mr B first came to the Council’s attention in October 2017 when a safeguarding referral was made. Mr B was on a child in need plan. The Council then made section 47 safeguarding enquiries which led to the decision to go to an ICPCC.
91. The ICPCC agreed unanimously to make Mr B subject to a child protection plan. This was based on all the professionals at the ICPCC agreeing there were concerns that Mr B was at significant risk from gangs.
92. I find that the evidence shows the Council had significant concerns for Mr B’s wellbeing. I find that it was appropriate for the Council to make section 47 enquires. For this reason, I find the Council acted in line with the guidance, outlined in paragraphs 16 to 20.
93. The outcome of the section 47 enquiries was the decision to go to an ICPCC. I find this was an entirely appropriate decision to have made in the circumstances.
94. It was not solely the Council’s decision to make Mr B subject to a child protection plan. This was a multi-agency decision based on serious risk concerns. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of a decision when there is no fault in the way the decision was reached.
95. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.

Agreed action

96. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr B for the uncertainty caused by not annotating its records by the end of April 2019, as it said it would.
97. The Council met with Ms X in November 2019 to discuss annotating its records. Ms X has requested information from another council which will inform how these records are annotated. Once Ms X has this information, the Council says it will meet with Ms X and Mr B to discuss making the annotations. The Council says it will update the Ombudsman once this has happened. It is my view that this should be completed within three months of this decision.
98. The Council should make the agreed annotations to its records promptly after this meeting, and should write to Ms X and Mr B to confirm when this has been done.
99. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

100. I have completed my investigation and uphold parts a and c of Ms X’s complaint on the basis that I have found fault. The fault relating to part c of the complaint caused Ms X and Mr B injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.
101. I do not uphold parts b, d, e or f of the complaint. This is because I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

102. As stated above (paragraphs three to five), I have not investigated the Council’s actions that relate solely to complaints handling before December 2018. This is because Ms X complained to the Ombudsman at that time, and therefore she had an opportunity to raise any concerns with the complaints handling up to that point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman