Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to inform her that a Child in Need plan is a voluntary programme, harassed her and wrongly disclosed her phone number to her former partner. She also says the Council failed to provide a copy of an assessment report in good time for a court hearing. The Council is at fault, has caused injustice and has agreed a financial remedy and an apology.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, says:
1. The Council failed to explain to her that engagement with a Child in Need plan is voluntary and that Council communications implied that it was not;
2. A social worker harassed her on the doorstep of her home and refused to leave when asked;
3. The Council disclosed her phone number to her child’s father, who had previously harassed her;
4. The Council failed to provide her with a copy of an assessment report in good time for a court hearing with her child’s father, leaving her at a disadvantage in court.

She says these faults caused her considerable stress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s communications with Ms X and whether its remedy for the disclosure of her phone number to her former partner is adequate. I have not investigated what happened in the court hearing, as this is out of jurisdiction.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. I shared my draft statement with Ms X and the Council and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children in Need

7. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 a child will be considered in need if:
1. they are unlikely to achieve or maintain or to have the opportunity to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without provision of services from the Council;
2. their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision of services from the Council;
3. they have a disability.
8. Councils are under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need and provide services appropriate to their needs.
9. The aim of a child in need assessment is to identify the needs of the child and ensure that family and carers are given appropriate support. This is a voluntary process.

What happened

Communications around the Child in Need Plans

10. In 2020 the Council carried out an assessment of Ms X’s daughter, who I refer to here as D, and decided she was a “Child in Need” (CIN). In late October the Council called at Ms X’s house unannounced.
11. The social worker’s notes of the visit state that the purpose of the call was to hand deliver the assessment report and “talk to Miss X about offering her support under a Child in Need plan”. Ms X told the social worker she could not come in as she had friends due to arrive in 10 minutes. The social worker then notes: “I said that we were planning to keep [D’s] case on a CIN plan and I wanted to talk to her about it”. Ms X asked her to email. The social worker then asked to see D. Ms X asked why and was told “I need to see D as I am a children’s social worker”. Ms X asked the social worker to leave and make an arrangement to visit.
12. The social worker’s notes add: “At each visit I have done with [D, Ms X], I have felt that she does not want support from children’s services.”
13. After failed attempts by the social worker to arrange a repeat visit Ms X was given a copy of the CIN plan. In mid-November she referred the plan to us and advised a manager at the Council of this. In response the manager’s letter told Ms X that the CIN plan “requires your consent” and asked her to raise her objection formally if she did not give her consent. The manager added that he would close the plan if he did not hear otherwise by the end of the first week in December.
14. Before this deadline was reached the social worker again emailed Ms X to arrange a visit to discuss the CIN plan. Ms X replied to say that she did not wish to engage with the Council.
15. The manager then sent Ms X a final email which said: “As you know a child in need plan is voluntary and therefore it is your choice if you engage with the plan and us visiting”.
16. Ms X complained that she should have been told earlier that engagement with the CIN process was voluntary.
17. Ms X also complained about the social worker’s unannounced visit to her home in October. She said the social worker had refused to leave when repeatedly asked and disclosed private information on the doorstep which could have been heard by neighbours or passers-by. She said that she lives on a busy main road and that fencing and hedging on the boundaries of her property means it is not possible to tell when her neighbours are in front of their houses and able to overhear. Ms X described the social worker’s actions as harassment.
18. In its response the Council said the social worker had acted appropriately. It said social workers are expected to see children who are on CIN plans and that the social worker was trying to build a relationship with D. It said there was no-one within hearing distance and there was no breach of Ms X’s right to privacy.

Analysis

19. The Council and Ms X have provided different descriptions of what happened on the doorstep. However, the Council has accepted that Ms X did explain to the social worker that she had friends arriving shortly and that she wanted the social worker to leave. In my view, once Ms X had made the position known, it was inappropriate for the social worker to request a meeting with Ms X’s daughter. Ten minutes is too short a time to build a relationship, and there was a risk the social worker would have been in the house when Ms X’s friends arrived which Ms X clearly wished to avoid. The Council is at fault for failing to leave immediately.
20. It is not possible to reach a finding on whether Ms X’s privacy was breached. However, in my view discussing CIN arrangements on the doorstep is inappropriate where there are other properties in close vicinity and there is no reason why the matters could not be discussed by arrangement at an alternative date.
21. Leaving aside Ms X’s recollection of events, the social worker’s notes of the October doorstep encounter do not give the impression Ms X was offered the CIN plan as a voluntary process. The notes say Ms X was told the Council intended to keep D on a plan and that the social worker needed to see D. The impression from the notes is of a compulsory process with which Ms X was required to co-operate despite the time being inconvenient to her.
22. The social worker’s notes also state that Ms X had previously indicated she did not want support from children’s social services. Given this history of reluctance it was imperative the Council made it explicitly clear that engagement with CIN was voluntary and took time to explain how Ms X and D could benefit from a plan. That it did not do so is fault by the Council, which caused injustice. Had the Council handled matters more sensitively Ms X may have engaged, and D may have received the support the Council believed she needed.
23. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £300 to compensate for this injustice and for her time and trouble in making the complaint.

Disclosure of Ms X’s mobile telephone number to her former partner

24. The Council has confirmed that in 2019 Ms X asked that her phone number be kept confidential from her former partner. It has admitted it supplied a copy of an assessment report to Ms X’s former partner which had her phone number on the front. In response to Ms X’s complaint it apologised, adding that the Council’s data protection team viewed the breach as “low level” and had recommended no action be taken internally.
25. The Council also said there were “mitigating factors” in that Ms X did not raise the issue of confidentiality with the staff member responsible for the assessment report despite having “ample opportunity” to do so. It also said Ms X was in touch with her ex-partner for the purpose of arranging contact with their daughter, so there was not “complete confidentiality”. It added that any misuse of the phone number by Mr X would have an impact on him in the ongoing court process.
26. Ms X told me her former partner had violently abused her in the past and that the Council was aware of this. She said a judge had previously described her former partner as “controlling” and as a “bully” and that keeping her phone number confidential was a key part in removing his ability to control her. She told me she feels the Council has attempted to “make light” of the situation and that the disclosure caused her huge stress and anxiety.

Analysis

27. The Council has admitted and apologised for a breach of data protection, however it has sought to downplay the consequences of this and also to place some of the responsibility for the breach on Ms X’s shoulders.
28. Ms X had no responsibility to re-state the need for confidentiality having made the request of the Council in 2019. The Council is aware of the history of domestic abuse of Ms X and she had no reason to think her request needed re-stating. The fact that her former partner has not misused the number to date is not a guide to his future behaviour when the court process has ended.
29. The Council is at fault in releasing Ms X’s phone number. The injustice to Ms X is serious and the Council has compounded her distress through its arguments in mitigation.
30. The Council has agreed to pay £500 to Ms X to compensate for this injustice and for her time and trouble in bringing the complaint and apologises for the distress caused.

Provision of the assessment report

31. The Council completed its assessment of D in mid-September 2020. The Council said it posted a report to Ms X in the two weeks following this. Ms X says she never received this and has disputed whether it was ever posted. In mid-October the Council says it prepared another copy for postage, but this was delayed internally for Covid-related reasons and was not posted for a further two weeks. The Council hand-delivered the report in the final week of October - two days after a private court hearing in respect of D.
32. In early October Ms X’s partner had requested a copy of the report by email and the Council had sent it to him. In its response to my enquires the Council said: “[Ms X] never requested that we email out the assessment and therefore we assumed that she preferred the assessment in writing. We do not routinely send out assessments via email unless specifically requested.”
33. Ms X has said she was disadvantaged at the hearing as compared to her former partner as she had not seen the report. She said there were numerous references to the report during proceedings which she was unable to comment on. In its response to me the Council said the report had no impact on decisions made in court.

Analysis

34. In my view the Council was at fault for assuming Ms X did not want to receive the report by email. It was aware that COVID-19 was affecting the postal service and that one report had already failed to reach Ms X by post. The obvious thing to do would have been to provide the report by email without waiting for a request.
35. What happens in court is outside of our jurisdiction. I am therefore not able to comment on any injustice Ms X may or may not have suffered during the hearing.

Back to top

Recommended action

36. The Council has agreed that within one month of this final decision it will apologise to Ms X and pay her £800 to compensate for the injustice caused and her time and trouble in bringing her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

37. The Council is at fault and has agreed a financial remedy and an apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman