Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s involvement with her family after an incident of domestic violence. We find the Council was at fault when it wrongly told Mrs D’s husband that he could not return home. The Council also failed to explain the purpose of Child in Need meetings, delayed providing her with a document after repeated requests, delayed dealing with her complaint and failed to consider her complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained about the Council’s involvement with her family after an incident of domestic violence. She says the social worker forced her to sign a document without any explanation. She adds the Council failed to explain the purpose of a Child in Need meeting and failed to provide her with relevant documents on her case despite repeated requests.
2. Mrs D also says the Council delayed and failed to appropriately deal with her complaints about the matter. She also complained that the Council failed to offer her and her children reasonable adjustments despite her requests. Mrs D says it has caused emotional and financial distress for the whole family.
3. Mrs D also complained about the accuracy of the Council’s assessments on her children.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints as set out in paragraph one and two above. I have not investigated the accuracy of the Council’s assessments on Mrs D’s children for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information Mrs D submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
10. Mrs D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

11. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
12. These duties are set out in the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. If a council receives a report of concern about a child, the referrer must have the opportunity to discuss their concerns with a qualified social worker. The council must then, within one working day, decide what response is required. This includes determining whether:

• The child requires immediate protection.
• The child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
• There is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.

13. Where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to hold a strategy discussion and make further enquiries. These are to decide whether it needs to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. A section 47 enquiry may be triggered if there are allegations about neglect or abuse of a child.

Child in need assessment

14. Multi-agency assessments under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (known as child and family assessments) must be carried out within 45 days from the safeguarding referral. The purpose of the assessment is to gather information and to analyse the needs of the child or children and/or their family and the nature and level of any risk of harm to the child or children. The child must be seen by a qualified social worker, who should also interview the parent and any other relevant family member.
15. Following the assessment, a council will decide whether to:

• Take no further action.
• Develop a child in need plan for the provision of services to promote the child's health and development.
• Carry out specialist assessments for a more in-depth understanding of the child's needs and circumstances.
• Undertake a strategy discussion and a section 47 child protection enquiry.
• Take emergency action to protect a child.

Children’s social care complaints

16. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, Getting the Best from Complaints, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
17. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
18. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. The guidance says once a council has accepted a complaint at stage one, it must ensure the complaint continues to stage two and three if that is the complainant’s wish.
19. At stage two of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel.
20. The guidance says who can complain and what they can complain about. For example, a complaint may arise because of many things relating to statutory social services functions such as:

• concern about the quality or appropriateness of a service;
• delivery or non-delivery of services including complaints procedures;
• quantity, frequency, change or cost of a service;
• attitude or behaviour of staff; and
• the impact on a child or young person of the application of a local authority policy.

21. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

22. Mrs D has five children. The Council received a safeguarding referral from the police in December 2019 which alleged Mrs D’s husband (Mr D) had assaulted her. The Council decided it was appropriate to assess Mrs D’s children under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
23. Two social workers visited Mrs D at her house. They spoke to her children. Mrs D asked for support. The Council’s notes also show Mrs D consented for it to start its assessments on her children.
24. The Council visited Mrs D again at her house on 20 December 2019. She asked the social workers if Mr D could return home because he had been released from custody without any bail conditions. Mrs D says the social workers asked her to sign a “letter of expectations”. This letter outlined the Council’s concerns and said Mr D could not return home until the Council had completed its assessments.
25. Mrs D called the Council on 23 December 2019 and complained. She said she felt forced into signing the letter of expectations. She said Mr D was sleeping in his car and she wanted him to return home and receive support. The Council agreed there was no legal basis for Mr D not to be in the home. It said Mr D could return home and it would prepare an updated letter of expectations.
26. Two social workers visited Mrs D at her house later that day. She signed an updated letter of expectations which said Mr D could return home. The Council also agreed to offer support to the family and complete assessments on Mrs D’s children.
27. The Council completed its fourth home visit on 27 December 2019. Mrs D confirmed she was sticking to the new letter of expectations and there had been no further issues.
28. In January 2020, Mrs D emailed the social worker and said Mr D had received a voicemail about a visit the following day. She said she had previously asked for announced visits. She also said she had no information about what the visit would entail and how long it would last. The social worker responded to Mrs D and said the visit would last around 45 minutes.
29. Mrs D called the Council on 17 January 2020 to complain. She spoke to a manager. She said there had been too many unannounced visits and the visits were repetitive and too long. The manager agreed she would raise the issues with the social worker. She also agreed that moving forward unannounced visits would happen, but they would be short and to check progress. Assessment sessions would be planned, and the social worker would share information before the visit.
30. Mrs D emailed the Council on 6 February and said the social worker said she would provide a copy of the letter of expectations but had failed to do so. The Council responded on 12 February and said it would speak to the social worker and ask her to give a copy of the letter of expectations to Mrs D.
31. The social worker emailed Mrs D on 13 February. She said she had not been in touch previously because of ill-health. She asked to come out for a visit on 19 February. Mrs D replied to the social worker and asked for an agenda. The social worker replied and said she would be sharing information she had gathered and would also check on how things were progressing.
32. Mrs D emailed the social worker on 17 February and asked to rearrange the meeting on 19 February. The social worker offered an afternoon appointment for the same day. Mrs D confirmed she could attend.
33. The social worker emailed Mrs D on 19 February and said she would have to cancel the home visit scheduled for later that afternoon. Mrs D emailed the social worker’s manager on the same day and complained she still had not received a copy of the letter of expectations.
34. The social worker emailed Mrs D on 21 February and attached a letter inviting her to a Child in Need meeting on 25 February. A Child in Need meeting is an opportunity for the child, parent, and other key agencies to agree the most effective services to meet the assessed need of the child.
35. The social worker said she could not visit Mrs D before the meeting. Mrs D responded on the same day. She said not received copies of the assessments on her children or a copy of the letter of expectations from 23 December 2019. She also said she had no information on what a Child in Need meeting was and who had been invited. She said she rejected the social worker’s involvement with her family until the complaints process had been concluded. Mrs D also emailed the social worker’s manager and complained she had not received a copy of the letter of expectations despite repeated requests.
36. The social worker that was dealing with Mrs D suddenly left the Council. Her case was reallocated to another social worker and he visited Mrs D at her house on 13 March. He also provided her with copies of the assessments on her children.
37. The officer (Officer A) dealing with Mrs D’s complaint emailed her on 23 March and confirmed she would phone her to discuss her complaint. Mrs D replied and said no one had contacted her about her complaint for six weeks. Mrs D emailed Officer A the following day and said she had tried to phone but could not get through. She also said the assessments she had received were full of errors and untruths. Officer A responded and apologised for missing Mrs D's call. She said the Council was experiencing challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and she would get back to her the following day.
38. Officer A emailed Mrs D on 27 March and apologised for not contacting her sooner. She said the Council was experiencing further staffing issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and she was off work. She said she would hopefully shortly be returning to work.
39. A different officer (Officer B) emailed Mrs D on 31 March. She apologised for not responding to Mrs D’s email on 21 February and said she had tried to ring her but was unsuccessful. She asked for Mrs D to contact her to discuss her complaint. Mrs D responded and said Officer A was meant to be dealing with her complaint. Officer B responded and said she was not aware Officer A had contacted her. She said Officer A was still off work. Officer B said her role was to clarify Mrs B’s complaint. She asked Mrs D to phone her to discuss her complaint.
40. Mrs D replied to Officer B’s email. She said was disappointed Officer A had failed to ring her. She said the social worker had failed to explain the Child in Need meeting process and further complained about the quality of the assessments. She asked for the Council to withdraw its involvement with her family and for the social worker’s assessments to be destroyed.
41. The Council issued its stage one response to Mrs D’s complaint on 14 April. It apologised that Mrs D was not given more notice for the Child in Need meeting. It also apologised that the social worker had only included the views of one of her children in the other children’s assessments. It also said that the new social worker could complete new assessments on her children. Finally, it referred Mrs D to the ICO for her complaint about the accuracy of the assessments.
42. Mrs D emailed the Council on 24 April. She said it was her understanding that an assigned officer would contact her to ask for details of her complaint. She said no one had advised her how to complain formally. She also complained that the social worker had not made any referrals for further support.
43. The Council issued a further response to Mrs D’s complaint on 15 June. It said:

• Officer B had tried to contact Mrs D verbally to clarify her complaint.
• The social worker had noted on file that Mrs D could be referred to a community support worker. However, as Mrs D withdrew her consent and did not agree with the assessment, it could not deliver this service.
• It would close the case because Mrs D had withdrawn her consent and the social worker’s assessments did not highlight any other concerns requiring progression to a section 47 investigation.

44. Mrs D remained unhappy with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

The Council forced Mrs D to sign a letter of expectations under duress

45. As I was not there, it is difficult for me to say whether the Council forced Mrs D to sign the letter of expectations. The case notes suggest Mrs D provided her full consent. Mrs D has a different view because she called the Council on 23 December 2019 to complain.
46. However, it is clear the Council wrongly told Mrs D that Mr D could not return home. When the Council visited Mrs D on 20 December 2019, she confirmed Mr D had been released from custody without any bail conditions and she asked if he could return home. The Council said he could not. However, when Mrs D called to complain, the Council confirmed there was no legal reason why he could not return home and therefore issued an updated letter of expectations.
47. This fault has caused a significant injustice to Mrs D and her family. Mr D had to stay away from his family longer than necessary which has caused upset and distress.
48. There is also a financial injustice. Although Mrs D told the Council Mr D was sleeping in his car, she later found out that he booked a hotel for several days so that he had somewhere safe to stay.
49. Mrs D has provided me with receipts of the hotel stays between 21 December 2019 to 1 January 2020. She has not been able to provide me with a receipt for 20 December 2019 because she says it was booked on a different system. However, I find it more likely than not that Mr D stayed in a hotel on this date because this was when the Council first issued the letter of expectations.
50. I consider the Council should refund the entire period from 20 December 2019 to 1 January 2020. It was not unreasonable for Mr D to book several days at a time he had no idea when the Council would complete its assessments and when he would be able to return home.

The Council invited Mrs D to a Child in Need meeting without any explanation

51. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has provided me with a statement from a social worker that went to Mrs D’s house on 20 December 2019. She says the process for a Child in Need meeting was fully explained to Mrs D and she provided her with an assessment pack which provided information. She also accepts the case notes do not reflect the two-hour conversation that took place. Mrs D disputes that she was provided with an assessment pack or any information on the process.
52. The Council also says Mrs D’s son’s assessment refers to the fact that it provided her with a copy of the assessment pack. It says Mrs D emailed Officer B and she would not have known her contact details if she was not given a copy of the assessment pack. Mrs D says she found Officer’s B contact details after searching on the Council’s website.
53. 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.
54. I have looked at the Council’s notes of 20 December 2019. There is no written record it gave Mrs D an assessment pack, explained the purpose of Child in Need meetings or what would happen when it completed its assessments on Mrs D’s children.
55. I note that in the Mrs D’s son’s assessment it says she was given a copy of the assessment pack. I also note that Mrs D raised concerns about the accuracy of the assessment. I have also found Officer B’s contact details on the Council’s website and so I do not consider this is proof that the Council gave Mrs B a copy of the assessment pack. It is unlikely Mrs D would have emailed the Council on 21 February 2020 and asked what a Child in Need meeting was if it had previously explained what they were. I therefore find it is more likely that not that Mrs D was not given any information on Child in Need meetings. This is fault. This caused Mrs D unnecessary confusion and frustration.
56. The Council also says that the social worker arranged the Child in Need meeting before she completed her assessments on Mrs D’s children. Therefore, the social worker could not share the assessments when she emailed Mrs D. This is fault. The social worker should have arranged the Child in Need meeting when she had completed her assessments. This has caused even more confusion for Mrs D.
57. I do accept that Mrs D had some understanding that the Council would assess her children and contact their schools. This is evident from the letters of expectations Mrs D signed and her emails with Council.

The Council failed to make any referrals

58. The Council says Mrs D had referred herself to a domestic abuse service. It also says it would have referred Mrs D to a community support worker if she had consented to its continued involvement.
59. Mrs D says the Council should have given her support. She says the Council is legally bound to make referrals without delay.
60. The decision whether to make referrals is a matter of professional judgment for the social worker. The social worker was already aware Mrs D had previously referred herself to the domestic abuse service.
61. The social worker did contact the domestic abuse service and it said that Mrs D was open to receiving support and it had referred her to a victim support programme and a counselling service.
62. The social worker did record that it was necessary for Mrs D to be referred to a community support worker. I have seen a copy of the referral from February 2020. The purpose of the community support worker was to attend the Child in Need meetings and to work with Mrs D and her family.
63. Mrs D asked for the social worker to be removed and disagreed with the content of the assessments. She also eventually asked for the Council not be involved with her family in March 2020. The referral would have been explored with Mrs D if the Council had continued to be involved in her case and the matter proceeded to Child in Need meetings. This did not happen because of Mrs D’s request. There is no evidence of fault.

The Council delayed providing relevant documents despite repeated requests

64. The evidence shows Mrs D repeatedly asked for a copy of the letter of expectations. She emailed the Council on 6 February 2020, 19 February 2020 and on two occasions on 21 February 2020. Mrs D’s email of 6 February 2020 also refers to a previous conversation when she asked for a copy of the letter of expectations.
65. The Council provided Mrs D with a copy of the letter of expectations when it responded to her complaint on 15 April 2020.
66. The Council’s repeated refusal to provide Mrs D with a copy of the letter of expectations when she requested it is fault. This caused her avoidable frustration.

The Council delayed and failed to appropriately deal with Mrs D’s complaints about the matter

67. It is not clear which process the Council followed when it investigated Mrs D’s complaint. It should have investigated her complaint under the statutory complaints procedure and responded at stage one within 20 working days. However, it took nearly two months to issue its stage one response to her complaint. It took another seven weeks to issue a further response to Mrs D’s complaint. The Council says its second response was not a stage two response and instead it was intended to provide further clarification to Mrs D’s concerns.
68. The Council says it was under pressure because of the COVID-19 pandemic and this contributed to the delay. It also says it was dealing with an inspection from an external organisation which had an impact on its resources. My role is to consider whether the Council’s delay was fault.
69. The Council acknowledged Mrs D’s complaint on 21 February 2020 and said a manager would call her on the following Monday. This did not happen. The Council did not contact Mrs D again and explain the reason for any delay. Officer A contacted Mrs D on 23 March 2020 and said it would contact her the following day. This did not happen. The Council also did not update Mrs D on how long it would take to respond to her email on 24 April 2020.
70. I consider this is fault. I appreciate the Council was dealing with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it should have provided Mrs D with a realistic timescale of when it would get back to her and provided her with updates. This fault caused Mrs D an injustice because she had the uncertainty of not knowing when the Council would respond to her complaints.
71. There was also some confusion about who was dealing with Mrs D’s complaint. Officer B was not aware Officer A had already been in contact with Mrs D. This caused avoidable frustration for Mrs D as it was not clear to her who was dealing with her complaint and the process the Council was following.
72. As I have mentioned in paragraph 67, the Council should have considered Mrs D’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. The statutory guidance says if a family is not happy with a council’s actions under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, then the complaint should be considered using the statutory complaints procedure. The Council did not do this. This is fault. The Council has denied Mrs D an opportunity to have her complaint investigated under the correct process.
73. The Council says Mrs D was aware of the statutory complaints procedure because she received the assessment pack. It also says if Mrs D had contacted the Customer Care Manager when she received the response to her complaint on 14 April 2020, it would have explained the stage two process.
74. The onus is on the Council to ensure it is following the correct procedure. Even if Mrs D sent her complaint to the wrong place, it should have re-directed her to the right place. The Council’s stage one response said Mrs D could either email the Customer Care Manager or the Principal Manager if she remained unhappy. Mrs D emailed the Principal Manager and so I do not accept she directed her concerns to the wrong place.
75. During my investigation, the Council offered to investigate Mrs D’s complaints through an external and independent stage two process. I have decided this is not appropriate because of the length of time that has passed and the sufficient opportunity the Council had to pick this up sooner.

The Council failed to offer Mrs D and her children reasonable adjustments despite her requests

76. Mrs D says she described her difficulties to the social worker surrounding unannounced visits, especially with her autistic son and her anxiety disorder. She says despite this Council failed to offer her any reasonable adjustments. Mrs D says the social worker could have accessed her GP records.
77. I do not doubt Mrs D’s disabilities but there is no evidence she told the Council about them. I would not expect the social worker to request Mrs D’s GP records. The Council’s records show Mrs D’s son has extra support in school. However, there is no record of autism.
78. The evidence does show Mrs D complained about unannounced visits because she felt ill-prepared. She also asked for information on what each visit would entail and how long it would last. The Council said that unannounced visits would happen, but they would be short and to check on progress only. It also agreed to plan assessment sessions and share information before the visit.
79. The social worker emailed Mrs D on 13 February 2020 and asked to visit on 19 February 2020. She did not give any information on what the visit would entail. Mrs D replied and asked for an agenda. The social worker replied on the same day and provided it. While I accept the social worker should have provided an agenda when it first emailed Mrs D, she quickly corrected her mistake by providing it when Mrs D asked. I do not find this minor mistake significant enough to be fault.

Agreed action

80. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 7 April 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mrs D £300 for the distress, upset and frustration its actions have caused her.
• Apologise to Mrs D.
• Pay Mr D £456 to reimburse the unnecessary hotel costs.
• Using this case as an example, ensure staff dealing with complaints are aware of the circumstances when the statutory complaints procedure should be used for children’s social care services complaints.
• Using this case as an example, ensure its social workers are aware of the importance of explaining the process it is following during its involvement with a family.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I have found fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Mrs D. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

82. I have not investigated Mrs D’s concerns about the accuracy of the Council’s assessments on her children. If Mrs D is dissatisfied with the Council’s records, she can request they are rectified under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). If she is unhappy with the Council’s response, she can refer her complaint to the ICO. The ICO is better placed to decide if the Council has accurately recorded her data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman