Summary: Ms C says the Council was at fault for the way in which it conducted an investigation into a referral that her daughter, X, might be at risk of harm. She says the investigation caused X distress. The Council was not at fault. Having received a referral, the Council had no choice but to investigate. It carried out a proportionate investigation before finding X was not at risk.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, who I have called Ms C says the Council was at fault for the way in which it investigated a referral of possible risk of harm to her daughter, X. She says this caused injustice, distress, both to herself and her daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the information sent to the Ombudsman by Ms C which was sufficient to make a decision without making further enquiries.
5. I sent my draft decision to the Council and Ms C and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

6. The Council has published its safeguarding children procedures manual on its website. It states that:
• All professionals have a duty to make a referral where they consider a child is at risk of significant harm;
• Having received a referral, the Council has a duty to treat the child as potentially a child in need.
7. Councils have a duty to assess children who may be at risk. They may do so by way of an initial assessment to establish the facts. The initial assessment may suggest various outcomes ranging from taking no further action to taking the child immediately into care.

What happened

8. Ms C lives in the Council’s area with her daughter X who is in her early teens. Ms C has a progressive disease and requires help to live independently. The disease fluctuates in severity. Ms C says she has a plan for X’s care’s during attacks.
9. X attends a boarding school and boards part-time. When she is at home, she cares for Ms C. In June 2019, X was carrying out a domestic chore for Ms C when she suffered an accident. Ms C called the ambulance. X was treated for a minor injury at home. She did not require hospitalisation.
10. At the same time, Ms C suffered a relapse of her condition. The ambulance came and Ms C was taken to hospital.
11. Shortly after the visit, the ambulance service made a referral to the Council about X possibly being a vulnerable child. The referral said the home was ‘a hazard’ and X possibly needed care and support. This referral was picked up by the children’s services department.
12. Ms C was in hospital for several days. A social worker spoke to her in hospital and formed the view that she was confused. Officers investigated and found that X was at school. Officers located Ms C’s friend with power of attorney and asked her permission to speak to X at school. The friend gave this permission.
13. Officers then went to X’s school and interviewed her about the incident which resulted in the ambulance being called and her life at home. Officers continued to investigate. Having done so, they recommended no further action saying X faced no significant risk of harm.
14. Ms C complained to the Council. She said that X had been upset by the interview and that officers did not ask her permission before the interview took place.

Was there fault causing injustice?

15. Having received a referral, the Council had no option but to investigate. It cannot be at fault for doing so. The investigation was proportionate. I do not find fault.
16. Ms C says the Council should have asked her before interviewing X. Officers spoke to her as soon as they received the referral but felt she was confused. Another officer contacted the hospital later and spoke to a nurse who told her Ms C was not in a state to speak to her.
17. The Council then spoke to two of Ms C’s friends, one of whom had power of attorney and gained permission to interview X at school. I do not find fault.
18. Ms C complains about some of the questions asked during the interview. I have seen no evidence that any inappropriate questions were asked. She says X was upset by the interview itself. This claim is supported by the school’s headmistress.
19. However, there is no evidence that officers said or did anything to intentionally distress X. I accept that she found the interview distressing but the Council was not to know this in advance. And, in any event, the Council had to investigate the risk to her. It was not therefore at risk for interviewing her. I do not find fault.
20. Ms C also says she had plans in place for X’s care should she be hospitalised again in future. The Council accepts this but says, fairly, that it did not know this before interviewing her. In any event, the referral concerned risk at home so this is not strictly relevant.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have decided the Council was not at fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman