Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions and final response to a Review Panel’s recommendation following investigation via the statutory complaint procedure. Mr X also complains about a Council staff member he says wrongly gave the police information about his work history and recorded false allegations about him in the family’s social care notes. He complains about the Council’s delay and refusal to deal with his complaint. The Council was at fault for its failure to adhere to the Review Panel’s recommendations and carry out the agreed actions. The Council was also at fault for its delays in handling Mr X’s second complaint. This has caused Mr X distress, frustration and time and trouble chasing the Council for updates. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaints

Complaint 1

1. Following the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s child protection complaint through the statutory complaint process, Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s final response to the Review Panel’s recommendations.
2. Mr X complains about the Council’s:

• failure to accept the seriousness of how it put his child in danger when he was taken into emergency care in April 2020
• failure to send Mr X its revised action plan following the stage 3 Review Panel held in May 2021
• failure to complete the recommendations made by the Independent Chair following the Review Panel
• delays in issuing its responses to Mr X’s complaints at each stage of its complaint process
• failure to acknowledge whether it has taken any disciplinary actions against its members of staff as a result of the stage 3 investigation findings.

3. Mr X says the Council’s failings has caused him significant anxiety, distress, financial loss and time and trouble. He says his privacy has been invaded, his reputation defamed and his mental and physical health has deteriorated.

Complaint 2

4. Mr X complains a member of the Council’s staff wrongly informed the police and recorded false allegations about him. Mr X said during an investigation into complaint 1, he found out a social worker made allegations that Mr X was under investigation and he was sacked from his job for ‘discreditable conduct’.
5. Mr X also complains about the Council’s delay and refusal to deal with his complaint which he originally made to it on 15 December 2020.
6. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress, time and trouble and it has affected his mental health. He says his family has been affected because the Council’s ‘incorrect’ official records influenced the outcome of the child protection decisions made in relation to his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
9. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
10. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
11. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
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. I have considered the information Mr X submitted with his complaints. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries on both complaints. I have considered both complaints in one decision statement as they are closely linked.
14. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered the comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Complaints Procedure

15. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about statutory social services functions. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 sets out the three stages as; stage 1 (Local Resolution), stage 2 (Investigation) and stage 3 (Review Panel).
16. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate the substantive issues unless we consider the investigation flawed.
17. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

18. This chronology includes key events and does not cover everything that happened.

Complaint 1

19. Mr X has parental responsibility for his stepchildren, Child 1 and Child 2.
20. Child 1 has some health conditions; this includes autism and diabetes.
21. There had been previous safeguarding concerns about the children while they were in the care of their biological father.
22. In April 2020, the Council’s Children Social Care Services received safeguarding concerns about Child 1’s behaviour. The police interviewed Child 1 and placed him into emergency care.
23. In May 2020, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He complained the Council failed to properly deal with several safeguarding concerns raised about his stepchildren and its failure to provide support to his family. In particular, Mr X complained about how the Council handled the April 2020 incident. He says the social worker failed to give him prior notice about the police visit to the family home which subsequently led to the police taking Child 1 away. Child 1 was placed into emergency care overnight. This was because the Council considered it was unsuitable to take him to either his biological father or back to Mr X’s home due to the safeguarding concerns raised. Mr X said the Council failed to tell him where Child 1 was kept overnight and left the child without access to his phone and glucose sensor for his diabetes. This meant he was unable to scan his blood readings which was crucial for Mr X to monitor his blood sugar levels. Mr X said the Council was aware of Child 1’s medical conditions and its failings could have led to Child 1 becoming distressed, ill or even led to his death.
24. Between June 2020 and January 2021, the Council completed stages 1 and 2 of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council upheld some of Mr X’s complaints to it. It explained its records showed Mr X was aware the police visit was being arranged but accepted it could have given Mr X adequate time to prepare Child 1 for the visit. The Council confirmed it was aware of Child’s 1 diabetes and it checked he had sufficient medication for the overnight stay. But the Council accepted it failed to contact Mr X the following morning to tell him about Child 1’s whereabout. And it failed to ensure the child had enough diabetes medical supplies to use the following morning while at the placement.
25. In February 2021, the Council apologised and offered Child 1 a payment of £500 for the distress the matter caused to him. The Council also apologised for its delay in completing its stage 2 complaint process and offered £500 remedy for the distress caused to Mr X’s family. The Council sent Mr X a copy of an action plan following the recommendations made at the stage 2 complaint process. It reassured Mr X the recommended actions would be completed, and lessons would be learnt from the errors identified.
26. Mr X replied to the Council. He remained unhappy with how it managed Child 1’s health condition and put him at risk of harm in April 2020. He said the Council’s apology and offer of a small financial payment did not address the seriousness of the matter and the significant distress caused to his family. Mr X declined the Council’s offer of financial remedy. He asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the statutory complaints process.
27. In May 2021, the stage 3 Review Panel was held. The panel’s report established Mr X was satisfied with the stage 2 investigation findings, but he was unhappy with the Council’s response and its actions to the findings. Mr X maintained the Council failed to acknowledge the potentially severe consequences of how it handled the April 2020 incident. He said it failed to provide his family with a proper and sincere apology for its errors and it failed to update him on the February 2021 action plan. Mr X asked the Council to provide more details about the lessons it had learnt from his case. He requested an improved action plan from the Council and to show how it planned to make improvements. Mr X asked the Council to increase its financial remedy offer to his family and to provide mandatory training to its staff.
28. The Panel found the Council’s February 2021 action plan was not sufficiently detailed and it failed to provide Mr X with updates on the actions the Council had taken. The Panel made recommendations to the Council. I have not included all the recommendations made but they included the following, that the Council must:

• ensure its stage 3 response to Mr X accurately communicated the degree and nature of its apology for the upheld sections of Mr X’s complaints to it
• within one month, provide Mr X with a fully detailed update of the action plan and inform him of the Council’s progress on it
• within two months, inform Mr X about any changes to be made to training plans and programmes in response to the learning from his complaint
• take steps to involve Mr X as far as possible in the conduct of a joint review with the police of the actions taken in respect of Child 1’s custody
• within one month, consider whether the financial offer already made to Mr X and Child 1 is sufficient in the light of the findings of the Panel, and then act accordingly.

29. The Panel concluded the recommended improvements would not change the service experienced by Mr X’s family. But it considered it fair and reasonable for the Council to keep Mr X updated on the lessons it had learnt from his complaint to it.
30. In June 2021, the Council issued its final response letter to Mr X following the review panel investigation. It acknowledged there were valuable learning points identified and it assured Mr X the action plan would be improved and more details added. The Council said it would share the revised action plan with Mr X and provide him with updates on actions taken. It confirmed it would contact Mr X and ensure he was involved in the joint police review. The Council apologised again for its failings and the distress the matter caused to Mr X and his family. The Council increased its financial remedy and offered Mr X £1,500.
31. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s final response. He maintained the Council had still not accepted the seriousness of how it put Child 1 in danger in April 2020. Mr X said the Council failed to say if it took any disciplinary action against its staff. He said the Council failed to send him the revised action plan or communicate any updates with him as agreed. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay at each stage of its complaints process and its stage 3 response was also issued a week late.
32. Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Complaint 2

33. Mr X said new information came to light during an internal police investigation relating to his other complaint (complaint 1 above). Mr X alleged a Council social worker told a police officer that he was sacked from his previous employment for ‘discreditable conduct’ and this incorrect information was added to his family’s case notes.
34. In April 2020, there was a telephone conversation between the police and the Council. The social worker’s case note stated Mr X’s employment was looked into and that he was sacked.
35. In September 2020, following Mr X’s concerns about the allegations made about him, the police carried out an internal investigation into the matter. The outcome of the police investigation confirmed there was no audio recording of the April 2020 conversation between the police officer and the social worker. Neither the police officer nor social worker could recall what was said and who said what during the call. It said the social worker made a note about Mr X being sacked but did not send her note to the police officer to confirm if the record was accurate.
36. The police investigation established that Mr X had not been sacked from his employment and had instead resigned.
37. In March 2021, Mr X wrote to the Council. He said he initially raised his concerns in December 2020 about the false allegations it made about him and was chasing the Council for its response. Mr X said it appeared the Council was ignoring his concerns and he asked it to confirm if it was looking into the matter.
38. In April 2021, the Council registered Mr X’s complaint.
39. In July 2021, the Council informed Mr X the reason for its delay in dealing with his complaint was because it involved the police who had carried out its own investigation as well. The Council said it would be unable to commence an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. This was because there was no way it could prove or disprove who made the allegations about Mr X during the April 2020 telephone call. The Council informed Mr X of his right to make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
40. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He wanted the Council to tell him exactly what happened and why the social worker made allegations about him. Mr X said the Council’s ‘incorrect’ official records had affected the outcome of the child protection decisions made in relation to his family.
41. Mr X also complains about the Council’s delay and refusal to deal with his complaint which he originally reported to the Council in December 2020.

Analysis

Complaint 1

42. After a statutory complaints investigation, the Ombudsman does not normally re‑investigate the substantive matters unless we consider the investigation flawed. In this case, I am satisfied the investigation was robust. Further investigation by us would not add or lead to a different outcome. The matters Mr X complained of was adequately considered during the statutory complaints process. The Council had apologised on several occasions to Mr X and his family for how it handled the April 2020 incident. Evidence shows the Council has had a joint meeting with the police to review the lessons learnt from its failings in line with the Council’s initial action plan. The Council also increased its financial remedy to £1,500 in recognition of the distress its failings and its complaint process delays caused to Mr X and his family. These are proportionate and appropriate remedies in accordance with our guidance on remedies.
43. However, there was no evidence the Council kept Mr X up to date with what actions had been completed on the initial action plan it issued to him in February 2021. It also failed to involve Mr X in its joint review discussions with the police. This was fault and Mr X was denied the opportunity to contribute to those discussions.
44. From the Council’s response to my enquiries and the evidence seen, the Council failed to revise the initial action plan following the Review Panel recommendations in May 2021. This was fault. The Council failed to adhere to the Review Panel’s recommendations in carrying out the agreed actions. This has caused Mr X distress, frustration and time and trouble chasing the Council for updates.
45. As regards whether the Council has taken any disciplinary actions against its staff after the stage 3 investigation findings, these matters are not for us to investigate. Staff disciplinary actions are matters for the Council, the outcome of which cannot be disclosed to Mr X. Therefore, I find no fault by the Council here.

Complaint 2

46. There was no audio recording of the April 2020 telephone conversation between the social worker and the police. I cannot therefore establish what was said during that call. I acknowledge this is an unfortunate situation but I do not find that the incorrect records affected the child protection decisions made in relation to Mr X’s family. The child protection decisions were made based on the safeguarding concerns the Council received about Child 1’s behaviour not Mr X’s employment history. This was not fault.
47. The Council has said it is unable to change the existing records in Mr X’s family social care files. But it has agreed to go through the family files and add a note to reflect Mr X was not sacked but resigned. This is a proportionate and appropriate remedy in accordance with our guidance on remedies.
48. As regards the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint, evidence shows Mr X wrote to the Council in March 2021 chasing its response to the complaint he had previously made to it in December 2020. I find no evidence the Council recorded the complaint Mr X made to it in December 2020. Mr X chased the Council for its response in March 2021, but the Council did not respond to him until July 2021. This was a significant delay, and it amounts to fault. Mr X was put to time and trouble pursuing his complaint and the matter caused him distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed within one month of the final decision:

• apologise to Mr X and his family for failing to provide him with a revised action plan following the Review Panel investigation held in May 2021
• pay Mr X £100 in recognition for the distress and the avoidable time and trouble caused to him by the delay in dealing with his complaint (complaint 2)
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of meeting the Council’s complaint procedure timescales

50. Within two months of the final decision:

• provide Mr X with a copy of the Council’s revised action plan to show all the recommendations made by the Review Panel following its investigation in May 2021
• provide Mr X and the Ombudsman evidence of the actions completed from the revised action plan as recommended by the Review Panel in May 2021
• go through Mr X’s family social care files. Add a note to the files to reflect Mr X was not sacked but he resigned. This will ensure the correct information is available to anyone with access to the files.
• provide the Ombudsman evidence Mr X’s family social care files have been updated.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman