Summary: The Council were at fault for including inaccurate information about Mr C when completing a single assessment, it was also at fault for how it dealt with his complaints. It has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice these faults caused Mr C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about how the Councils Children’s Services has handled matters relating to he and his children. Mr C this caused him distress and that he has gone to considerable time and trouble pursuing this matter. Mr C complains:
1. The Council failed to properly investigate concerns he raised about his ex-partners behaviour in July and August 2018.
2. The Council recorded inaccurate and biased information when completing a single assessment after an incident in January 2019.
3. When he attended the Council’s office to speak to a Social Worker, he was told they were not in the office. However, Mr C says he subsequently saw the Social Worker leave the office.
4. The Council gave inaccurate information to another Local Authority, which resulted in his Special Guardianship Payments being stopped.
5. The Council failed to appropriately respond to his complaints about these matters.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the above points b-e above of Mr C’s complaint. I have not investigated the above point a, for the reasons explained at the end of this decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• Considered Mr C’s complaint
• Spoken with Mr C about his complaint.
• Made enquiries with the Council and considered their comments and documents provided.
• Reviewed relevant guidance and legislation.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection duties

7. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
8. These duties are set out in Statutory Guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’.
• When a council receives a referral about a child who may be at risk it makes initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family and assesses the information.
• Where the initial assessment shows a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm the council must hold a strategy discussion or meeting, jointly with the police where appropriate.
• If the strategy meeting decides to start a child protection enquiry, a social worker carries out a child and family assessment. The Guidance sets out the principles for a good assessment which should be child-centred, focusing on the action and outcomes for children and hearing their voice, where appropriate. It should involve the family and identify strengths and protective factors as well as risks to the safety and welfare of the children.

Children’s social care complaints

9. The statutory complaints process under the Children Act 1989 allows councils to investigate complaints about services provided to children in need and to their families.
10. Councils do not have to investigate child protection complaints under the statutory process although some will do so. In these circumstances, these complaints should be dealt with under the council’s corporate complaints process.

Background

11. Mr C was previously in a relationship with his ex-partner, who I shall refer to as Ms D. Mr C has two grandchildren, a granddaughter who I shall refer to as X and grandson, who I shall refer to as Z. Ms D is X & Z’s step grandparent. Mr C and Ms D have a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) in place for both grandchildren, and therefore they share parental responsibility.
12. Mr C and Ms D live in separate properties, due to space. Ms D lives with X and two other children. Mr C lives with his Z and two other children.

What happened

13. In January 2019, the police attended Ms D’s property after she reported that Mr C had assaulted her, while the three children she lives with were in the property.
14. The Council initially carried out an assessment to determine whether the three children had been exposed to domestic abuse, and what impact this may have had on them. I shall refer to this as Assessment 1.
15. The Council also decided to carry out an assessment to determine what impact Mr C’s and Ms D’s relationship may have on Z. I shall refer to this as Assessment 2.
16. When completing Assessment 2, the social worker visited Mr C and Z at their home to obtain their views. The views of Ms D were also obtained and recorded.
17. The social worker recorded that Z had previously lived with Ms D but in August 2018 he moved in with Mr C. The assessment states that Ms D’s view is that Mr C forced her into the arrangement, but Mr C’s view is that Ms D left Z at his home, leaving him with no choice but to care for him.
18. The social worker recorded that it was difficult to ascertain what had happened in August 2018, due to the difference opinions of Mr C and Ms D. However, the social worker recorded that there are no concerns about the care Z had been receiving.
19. The assessment went on to describe the support offered to both parents. It said Mr C had been offered a family support worker but did not engage and that he had been offered a parenting course but only attended two sessions. The social worker recorded that he recalled Mr C telling him he had ADHD during a previous conversation.
20. The social worker recorded that Mr C felt a level of distrust with the system and gave examples where he feels he had been discriminated against and shown in a bad light.
21. Mr C subsequently met with the social worker and their manager. The Council wrote to Mr C to confirm what was discussed.
22. Regarding SGO payments, the Council said that the assessment for X was completed by a different Local Authority when both X and Z lived with Ms D. The Council said that it has informed the Council that this arrangement had changed and asked if it wished to review the assessment.
23. In March, Mr C complained about the Council’s involvement in his case. He initially raised inaccuracies within Assessment 2, including inaccuracies in the report. Mr C subsequently submitted further complaints relating to the Council’s involvement in his case.
24. The Council arranged a meeting with Mr C to discuss his complaints. Mr C subsequently wrote to the Council again outlining his complaints.
25. The Council subsequently issued its response to his complaint, in which it addressed the accuracy of the assessments.
26. The Council upheld two elements of Mr C’s complaint about inaccuracies in the assessment, at stage 1 of its complaints process. It accepted that Mr C had attended more parenting sessions that stated in the assessment and that the assessment incorrectly stated that Mr C had refused to engage with a Family Support Worker.
27. Mr C had also complained that the Social Worker had recorded that Mr C had told him that he had ADHD, which Mr C denied. The Council said that the Social Worker had expressed his recollection of a previous conversation with Mr C, and had not stated if Mr C had ADHD or not.
28. The Council apologised to Mr C for the distress that the inaccuracies caused. It said that if he remained dissatisfied, Mr C could request to progress his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure. It also said he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
29. Mr C subsequently asked the Council to progress his complaint to stage 2. However, the Council refused stating he had exhausted its complaints procedure and signposted him to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

30. Mr C complains that Assessment 2 was biased and did not properly reflect Ms D’s behaviour towards their grandchildren. Mr C said she had previously abandoned Z when she left him at Mr C’s home and that she had previously behaved in an unacceptable way in front of the children.
31. However, in my view the social worker did consider all the evidence obtained which including Mr C’s views. The social worker made it clear that he was unable to know exactly what happened, due to Mr C and Ms D having very different versions of the events.
32. Based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied that in relation to the events that led to the referral, the social workers assessment was balanced and measured. I therefore do not find any fault with this element of Mr C’s complaint.
33. Mr C also complained about inaccuracies recorded about him in the report.
34. The social worker recorded in the assessment that he recalled Mr C previously saying he had ADHD. Mr C denies ever saying this.
35. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on this element of Mr C’s complaint. This is because the Ombudsman was not party to the previous discussions between Mr C and the social worker, and therefore there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion what was or was not said.
36. However, the Council do accept that Assessment 2 did contain some inaccuracies regarding Mr C’s engagement with support services and it apologised for any distress this caused him.
37. However, I am not satisfied that it has properly remedied the distress this caused Mr C. These inaccuracies gave the impression that Mr C was not engaging with services, which, I consider, portrayed Mr C in a negative light.
38. Mr C has told the Ombudsman that the inaccuracies made him feel discriminated against and shown in a negative light, something he said he had experienced in the past when describing his distrust with other agencies.
39. I am therefore satisfied that the inclusion of this inaccurate information caused Mr C a level of distress. This is injustice. I consider that the Council should offer Mr C £150 to acknowledge the distress and remedy this injustice.
40. Mr C also complains about a visit he made to the Council offices, when he says he was told a social worker was not in the office, only to see him walk out a short time after.
41. The Council say that Mr C had been asked to arrange meetings, instead of turning up without an appointment. It suggests that Mr C may have been told the social worker was unavailable, just as he left for a meeting.
42. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on this element of Mr C’s complaint. I also do not consider that Mr C would have suffered an injustice. This is because it in not unreasonable for the Council to request Mr C arrange an appointment to see a social worker.
43. Mr C complains that the Council provided information to the Local Authority responsible for paying X’s SGO payments, which led to those payments being stopped.
44. The Council has said that it informed the Local Authority of the change in circumstances of the children’s living arrangements and suggested a review of the SGO assessment.
45. There was subsequently a five-month delay in Mr C receiving the payments from the Local Authority, who wanted clarification from Mr C about how payments would be managed in the future.
46. I do not find fault with how the Council dealt with this matter. I have not seen any evidence to suggest inaccurate information was provided by the Council. Nevertheless, it was the other Local Authorities responsibility to carry out the review, and it was their responsibility to decide what information it required from Mr C.
47. If Mr C thinks the payment was stopped unfairly, or that it was unreasonable for the other Local Authority to request written clarification he does have the option to complaint to the Local Authority that makes the payment.
48. Finally, Mr C complains about how the Council dealt with Mr C’s complaints.
49. Mr C would like his complaint to be progressed a stage 3 panel hearing. However, this is a step under the statutory complaints process. Mr C’s the Council considered Mr C’s under the Council’s two stage corporate complaints process, something it was entitled to do. I therefore do not find fault with this element of Mr C’s complaint.
50. However, in responding to Mr C’s complaint, I am not satisfied that the Council addressed all of the issues raised. This is because it only addressed the issue of inaccuracies in Assessment 2.
51. Furthermore, the Council provided Mr C with contradictory information. It informed him that he could contact the Ombudsman’s office or request a stage 2 investigation. When Mr C asked for a stage 2 investigation, he was told he had exhausted the complaints procedures. This is further fault.
52. Having considered this point, I believe Mr C went to some considerable time and trouble pursuing his complaints. This is an injustice. I consider that the Council should offer Mr C a payment of £100 to remedy this injustice.

Agreed action

53. The Council has agreed that within 1 month of the date of my final decision, it will:
• Offer to make a payment of £150 to Mr C for the distress it caused when it included inaccurate information in its assessment.
• Offer to make a payment of £100 to Mr C for the time and trouble he went to pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

55. I have not investigated how the Council responded to allegations he made about his ex-partner in July and August 2018.
56. Whilst records show these allegations were referred too during the assessment, there is no evidence that Mr C complained about how the Council dealt with the allegations at the time.
57. I therefore consider this element of Mr C’s complaint to be late and I do not consider there to be any reason why Mr C could not have raised these matters with the Council, and subsequently the Ombudsman, sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman