Summary: Mr D complains about a Council led child protection assessment concerning his daughter (Child X). He says the assessment report was biased towards him which flawed the process and the Council’s findings. In addition, Mr D says the Council failed to consider concerns he had about Child X’s welfare. We found fault by the Council due to the way it categorised Mr D without evidence and verifying information using available sources. We do not consider this affected the child protection outcome, but the way the assessment was carried out meant Mr D was treated unfavourably. This caused him serious distress and upset. We made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice and the Council has agreed to these.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr D, complains about the way Brighter Futures for Children (BFfC) carried out an assessment in relation to his daughter (who I refer to as Child X). BFfC is a limited company and is contracted to provide the Council’s Children’s Services functions on its behalf, which includes making assessments about child protection issues. The Council remains fully responsible for the actions of BFfC as a third-party contractor. I therefore refer to the complaint as being against the Council. Specifically, Mr D alleges the following:
1. The Council acted with bias towards him and reported on allegations made by his wife (Mrs K) and other public bodies as factual.
2. The assessment report contains harmful errors about him which are the result of the Council not verifying the information it received.
3. The Council did not properly consider concerns he reported about Child X. He says these concerns, as well as other key information, were not looked at as part of the assessment process.
4. He was unable to take part in a meeting being held to consider his complaint because of a computer problem the Council did not adapt to.
5. The Council delayed in providing Mr D with the written notes of formal meetings about Child X’s progress.
6. The Council did not telephone or write to Mr D on the subject of him recording telephone calls when it said it would.
7. The Council did not provide him with compensation for the failings it found during its own investigation of his complaint.
2. In summary, Mr D says the failings have caused him significant distress. He also says the harm to his daughter could have been avoided had the Council acted on information he had reported. As a desired outcome, Mr D wants the Council to provide him with compensation for its failings and to correct the errors contained in its reports. He also wants the Council to consider the issues which he says were overlooked during its assessment and complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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).
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
6. 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).
7. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916).
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).
9. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as medical or education providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have read Mr D’s complaints to the Council and Ombudsman. I have produced this report following examining relevant files and documents and interviews with the complainant and relevant employees of the Council. I have also had regard to applicable legislation, guidance and policy. I provided the complainant and Council with a confidential draft of my decision and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before my decision was finalised.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

Statutory complaints procedure

11. The Children Act 1989 (the Act) established the requirement for councils to have a formal representations procedure to deal with complaints about local authority functions under Part 3 of the Act and some sections of Parts 4 and 5. Later Acts have added to the scope of the procedure by widening the areas which are included and the people who can use the procedure.
12. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) specifies which functions under the various Acts are subject to the procedure. The Regulations should be read alongside the Act and other primary legislation to establish if the matters complained about are subject to the regulations or excluded. ‘Getting the Best from Complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others’ (2006) is guidance to accompany the Regulations.
13. Those named as people who may complain in the guidance can make complaints in their own right; there is no requirement for the complaint to be made on behalf of a child, or to seek the child’s consent. The guidance also makes it clear that councils can extend the procedure to cover individuals and circumstances not covered by the Regulations. Once a council has accepted a statutory complaint, we would usually expect it to follow the process through all three stages, other than the very specific circumstances in which an early referral can be made to the Ombudsman after stage two. These are set out in detail in the guidance.
14. Once a complaint has been through the full procedure, unless the complainant points to faults or omissions in the Council’s consideration, it should not require re-investigating by us. The Regulations specify that the Council-appointed investigator should be independent. They may be an employee of the Council but should have had no involvement with the subject matter of the complaint. The process should be overseen by an independent person (who is neither an elected member or an employee). Therefore, their findings should be relied upon unless there are flaws in the process or it has clearly not been robust enough.

Paramountcy principal

15. The Act says the needs and welfare of the child are paramount and these, as well as their wishes, should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates. The Act (s17) imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of “children in need” (CIN).
16. At s17(10) and (11), the Act defines a CIN as a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired, without the provision of services; or a child who is disabled. Should a local authority consider a child is in need, it can implement a CIN Plan.

Section 47 enquiry

17. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:
1. no further action;
2. a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
3. a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
18. Section 47 (s47) of the Act places a duty on agencies such as councils and the police to make child protection enquiries. This is to allow them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area. If the information gathered under s47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm, the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a CIN and implementing a safety plan.

Statutory guidance

19. ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ July 2018 (‘Working Together Guidance’). This is statutory guidance for local authorities and other agencies on how they should work together to assess children’s needs and make arrangements for promoting and safeguarding their welfare. It sets out the principles, processes and timescales for carrying out investigations.

Chronology of key events

20. The Council’s involvement with Mr D’s family began in mid-2017. This was when police attended Mr D and Mrs K at home due to Mrs K reporting a domestic incident. Mrs K reported that Mr D had been subjecting her to domestic violence for a number of years. She also told a Council social worker that she believed Mr D had sexually abused Child X.
21. Shortly after, Mrs K left the family home and moved to a women’s refuge with Child X. In addition, the Council decided to carry out an assessment under s47 of the Act to assess any risk to Child X. This was because there was not enough information or evidence to investigate the allegations made on a criminal basis.
22. In October 2017, the Council completed a Single Assessment. This records the information gathered, areas of risk, the needs of the child and if any further action needs to be taken. The social worker (SW1) responsible for the assessment concluded the case should be closed. This was because the Council found no risk that Child X was exposed to domestic violence between Mrs K and Mr D who were now living apart. The Single Assessment by SW1 also found Child X’s needs were being met and that the allegations made by Mrs K against Mr D could not be substantiated.
23. In November 2017, the Council started another Single Assessment following Mr D raising concerns about the welfare of Child X while under Mrs K’s care. The social worker (SW2) carrying out the Single Assessment contacted Mrs K and discovered that she and Child X were no longer living in the Council’s area. It was therefore unable to continue the assessment and the case was closed. SW2 also noted there were legal proceedings ongoing in relation to custody arrangements.
24. During the Council’s involvement with the family, Mr D also raised safeguarding concerns about Child X which the Council decided did not carry out a detailed assessment of. This is because the Council felt the concerns being raised did not lead it to believe Child X was suffering significant harm, or likely to do so.
25. In June 2018, the Family Court made a Child Arrangement Order (CAO). This gave both parents equal custody of Child X, as well as joint parental responsibility. The CAO said both Mr D and Mrs K are, among other things, entitled to information about Child X’s healthcare and education. The CAO also gave instructions that neither parent may take decisions about important educational and health matters for Child X without joint consultation and consent.
26. In January 2019, the Council received a child protection referral from a medical practitioner following Mrs K raising concerns about Child X and an area of redness on her body. Mrs K said she was concerns this was caused by sexual abuse and, therefore, s47 enquiries were undertaken to assess the matter.
27. In February 2019, the s47 enquiries concluded and found no concerns for Child X’s welfare, nor any evidence of sexual abuse or that she had come to any harm. This decision was made following Child X receiving a medical examination which did not identify any concerns with the area of redness found.
28. In May 2020, another Council social worker (SW3) started a Single Assessment Single Assessment 3) due to a concern that Mr D and Mrs K were considering restarting their relationship. The purpose of Single Assessment 3 was to assess any risk to Child X on account of her parents “acrimonious relationship”.
29. In August 2020, SW3 completed Single Assessment 3. The outcome was to refer the case to an ICPC. This is because the Council found there was evidence of Child X being at risk of harm from the relationship between Mr D and Mrs K. The ICPC occurred the same month and the Council decided that Child X’s complex needs met the threshold for her to be treated as a CIN. This resulted in a CIN Plan being introduced to meet the needs identified.
30. There were subsequently a number of CIN reviews to check Child X’s progress in keeping with her CIN Plan. Mr D has since pointed to flaws during this process.
31. In September 2020, Mr D made a Stage One complaint to the Council about Single Assessment 3. His concerns related to flaws in the assessment process and how information had been reported which he considered to be inaccurate.
32. The last CIN meeting was held in January 2021 where the Council decided to close Child X’s case which ended its social care involvement with the family.
33. In June 2021, the Council completed a Stage Two investigation into Mr D’s complaint using the statutory complaints procedure. This led to an independent report (Stage Two Report) which considered 13 different areas of complaint presented by Mr D. The investigation upheld the following two areas of complaint:

a) There was a delay in the notes of formal meetings about Child X’s progress being sent to Mr D due to pressures on the service.

b) The Council did not telephone or write to Mr D on the subject of him recording telephone calls when it said it would.

34. Dissatisfied with the findings of the Stage Two Report, Mr D escalated his complaint to Stage Three of the Council’s complaints policy and procedure. In October 2021, the Council formed a panel of internal officers and independent professionals to consider the complaint further. Following the meeting, a further report (Stage Three Report) was completed which largely supported the findings of the Stage Two Report, though upheld one further area of complaint:

c) There were instances of the Council not using the word ‘alleged’ in SW3’s Single Assessment when commenting on the allegations of domestic violence.

35. In January 2022, Mr D made a complaint to the Ombudsman having exhausted the Council’s complaints policy and procedure and received a final decision.

My assessment

Time limits and jurisdiction

36. By law, I cannot investigate any complaint made more than 12 months from the alleged fault occurring, unless there are good reasons for me to exercise discretion. The key part of this complaint relates to SW3’s Single Assessment which commenced in May 2020. The scope of my investigation would be to assess any fault and injustice since then. Mr D brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2022 (20 months since the alleged fault occurred). The issues raised also requires an examination of events which have occurred since August 2017. I have therefore considered our legal jurisdiction about time limits in accordance with the restriction I outline at Paragraph 6 (above).
37. Importantly, Mr D first complained to the Council in September 2020 and that internal process was not exhausted until November 2021. We expect complainants to exhaust the Council’s complaints policy and procedure before bringing a complaint to us and so I have discounted this period from my assessment about time limits. For those issues which occurred much earlier between mid-2017 and mid-2020, these events are only relevant to understanding the complaint history. I have been able to obtain evidence to reach a reliable and informed view of this. I am therefore exercising my discretion to investigate as there are good reasons to disapply our time limits.

Statutory complaints procedure

38. As already noted, Mr D’s complaint to the Council was considered under the statutory complaints’ procedure which I set out at Paragraphs 11 to 14 (above). I will therefore rely on the findings of the Council’s Report unless there are flaws in the process or it has clearly not been robust enough. A further point I must consider is that parts of Mr D’s complaint concern matters which have been subject to private legal proceedings. While the Council can look at complaints of this nature, we cannot as they fall outside our jurisdiction as outlined at Paragraph 7 (above). This is relevant to custody arrangements made by a CAO of the Family Court, or the content of reports it requests be carried out.
39. The Council’s Stage Two Report upheld 2 of the 13 complaints. The Council’s Stage Three Report then upheld 3 of these at Stage Three. For the reasons I give in this statement, parts of the Stage Two process were flawed. I consider 8 of the complaints should have been upheld. Those 8 complaints are included in the complaint summary at Paragraph 1 (above) which summarises Mr D’s complaint as a whole. This is because some of the 13 complaints overlap.

Complaint outcome (a): The Council acted in a biased way against Mr D and presented unsubstantiated allegations made by his wife as factual.

40. My role is not to decide whether allegations of domestic violence or harassment are founded, or not. The remit of my role is to investigate whether the Council’s assessments and findings are objective, evidence based and demonstrate good administrative practice. Once SW3 completed the Single Assessment, it was sent to the Team Manager for sign off. The sign off includes a number of comments in Single Assessment 3 which informed the ICPC. These are set out below.

(i) The sign off comments state Mrs K fled the family home with Child X due to evidence of domestic abuse being perpetrated by Mr D.

41. As found by SW1’s Single Assessment, Mrs K’s claim of being subjected to domestic abuse by Mr D has never been substantiated. I found SW3 in her Single Assessment outlined that Mrs K’s claims of domestic violence against Mr D were allegations. The information provided by SW3 refers to Mrs K’s reports to the police, her feelings and views. These are all relevant factors which should be included in the assessment process as they important to understanding the family dynamics. Apart from minor disputes, Mr D and Mrs K have no police history. Further, SW3’s Single Assessment does set out that no domestic abuse incidents were reported when Mr D and Mrs K were together.
42. It was not therefore accurate for the Team Manager to make the above statement. The Stage Two Report found the Team Manager was only drawing attention to Mrs K “stating" (emphasis added) domestic abuse and taking drastic action of fleeing the family home. I disagree as the Team Manager is referenced in the Stage Two Report saying there was evidence of domestic abuse. My finding is that this statement was not evidence based. Rather, it presented the allegation as a verified fact. This was fault by the Council which wrongly added credibility to a serious but unsubstantiated allegation.

(ii) The sign off comments states that professionals are fully aware of Mr D’s persistence to find out the family’s whereabout by harassing agencies.

43. The evidence I have reviewed makes no reference to any details or instances of Mr D seeking to find out the whereabouts or address of Mrs K from Council professionals, or otherwise. This was also not the focus of SW3’s Single Assessment and the only reference made in this document is that Mr D said he does not know Mrs K’s address. I have also considered information presented in Single Assessment 3 in relation to an NHS worker’s conversations with Mr D. The record shows Mr D reiterated to this agency worker that he did not know Mrs K’s address and there is no evidence he asked for it.
44. The Council was at fault due to the Team Manager’s comments. This is because these do not evidentially reflect the findings and concerns recorded during the Council’s involvement in this case. This was particularly distressing for Mr D as he was portrayed as someone perpetrating harassment which is a criminal offence. As I understand, Mr D has never been found to have engaged in a course of conduct which amounts to harassment.

(iii) The sign off comments state it was reported that Mr D obtained Mrs K’s private address from Child X. A view is then given that Child X would not have volunteered such information without having been asked for by Mr D.

45. The Team Manager said the Council received a report (from an unspecified source) that Mrs K’s address was disclosed to Mr D by Child X. A negative view of Mr D is then formed by the Team Manager who speculates Mr D would likely have inappropriately sought it from Child X. The Working Together Guidance outlines key considerations social workers should make when forming judgements. Central to developing a clear analysis of risk and a child’s level of need is that this is informed by the evidence available. This was a flawed approach by the Council to assessing risk and need because Single Assessment 3 neither refers to the event in question nor records the views of Mr D or Child X. I consider the Council’s fault was informed by a flawed conclusion that Mr D was harassing agencies for this and other information which I consider later (below).

(iv) The Single Assessment sign off comments state that Mr D’s wish for Child X to attend a nursery in his area is implausible. Further, it states support for Child X to attend a nursery in Mrs K’s.

46. It is reported in Single Assessment 3 that there was a conflict of views between Mr D and Mrs K as to where Child X should attend nursery. Both Mr D and Mrs K lived in different parts of the country and wanted Child X to attend a nursery in their respective area. The Council expressly supported Mrs K’s preference based on her views and without consulting with Mr D. In any event, I do not consider it was the Council’s role to support the circumstances of one parent over the other. This is because the CAO detailing custody and parental arrangements explains that educational matters require joint agreement by those exercising parental responsibility. I also found the Council’s approach to what it considers is or is not a matter requiring its involvement to be inconsistent.
47. In the Stage Two Report, both SW3 and the Team Manager gave evidence in relation to Mr D’s complaint. They each explained it was not the Council’s role to provide input and professional involvement as to whether Child X was registered for a GP in Mr D’s residential area, or Mrs K’s area. Both SW3 and the Team Manager acknowledge a dispute such as this by those who jointly share parental responsibility is a private matter. The dispute can also be referred to the courts for a best interests decision. This assessment was correct which is why it was therefore unhelpful for the Council to adjudicate on the question of where Child X should attend nursery. This was fault by the Council as the intervention was outside the scope of assessing risk to Child X. This had the effect of undermining Mr D’s parental responsibility on a matter which requires he be consulted on and consent to jointly with Mrs K.

(v) Single Assessment 3 expands on Mr D’s motivation for his preference of nursery location for Child X by stating “this in itself evidences that he continues to have a level of control.”

48. In summarising the assessment in this way, the Council was at fault. The issue of where Child X should go to nursery was a private matter, not relevant to the Council's consideration of the risk. It therefore should not have commented. Further, in doing so, the Council inaccurately reflected the evidence, which focused on travel distance and transport options, not domestic abuse.
49. Further, the sign off comments in Single Assessment 3 also refers to Mr D exercising control over Mrs K in regard to a communication book. The book logged information about Child X and allowed Mr D and Mrs K to share information about her, such as health matters. The Council formed its view of control based on Mr D’s requests being too detailed. This is a matter which relates to joint parental responsibility and the parents’ rights to information about Child X which is set out in the CAO. The Council was at fault for commenting on this subject and in the way it did as this added to the presentation of unverified allegations as factual circumstances.
50. I found the Council’s Stage Two report was inadequate in dealing with Mr D’s concerns about how he has been described. The Council failed to recognise and address the points Mr D made about bias shown towards Mrs K. Instead, the Stage Two Report provides excessive detail about why Mr D is wrong to be focusing on these past issues due to the assessment process being about Child X. This was not good administrative practice. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr D to inform whether the needs of Child X can be met. In doing so, the Council has formed a view of Mr D which is not reflected by the evidence. I consider this unevidenced statements would influence a reader to form a negative view of Mr D. He is entitled to raise a complaint about how this has affected him and the Council should have considered his views.
51. I do not consider the above failings affected the outcome of the assessment process in relation to Child X. This is largely because the comments made about Mr D were not relevant to assessing Child X’s needs and risk. Though the way the Council has portrayed Mr D is not reflected by the evidence, the assessment of Child X’s needs was evidence based. Central to the Council’s decision to refer the case to an ICPC was that the “acrimonious relationship” between Mr D and Mrs K was affecting Child X’s needs being met. In particular, the Council emphasised that Mrs K and Mr D were unable to make joint decisions that were in her best interests, without external input. It is not my role to question the merits of that decision and, in any event, it is not the subject of Mr D’s complaint to us.

Complaint outcome (b): The Council’s child protection assessment report contains harmful errors about him and failed to verify information.

52. This part of the complaint refers to information in Single Assessment 3 which other agencies passed to the Council. This was about a medical and education provider of Child X stating Mr D was harassing each of them. In my view, this information is what influenced the Council’s categorisation of Mr D in relation to the harassment of agencies. I have no legal jurisdiction to investigate the actions of, or the information provided by, a medical or education provider as outlined at Paragraph 9 (above). That said, how that information is considered and used to inform decision-making is an administrative function of the Council which properly falls within our jurisdiction.

(i) Information provided by NHS workers

53. As I understand, some working within a particular NHS Trust felt and recorded that Mr D was harassing professionals there with telephone calls to enquiring about Child X’s health. Mr D made a telephone call to an NHS worker 15 days before the ICPC which appears central to this formed view. Some of this information is included in Single Assessment 3 and formed the information shared with professionals attending the ICPC 8 days before it was held in August 2020. This includes reference to an announcement in July 2019 from the NHS Trust that “all unwarranted calls from father (Mr D) be immediately terminated, and that time and details should be passed to the police.”
54. What is contained in Single Assessment 3 and considered by the ICPC about this matter are the direct notes of the NHS worker. It is not for me to judge the accuracy of the comments made by an NHS professional and Mr D can complain to the NHS if he wishes. The Council does however maintain overall responsibility for what weight is given to information in analysing risk. SW3 who gave evidence in the Stage Two report stated “I have written the facts” when referring to the NHS worker’s information. This was inconsistent with the a point established in Council’s minutes of ICPC which states: “it seemed they (the agencies) had the impression he wasn’t entitled to information about Child X”. I also note that Mr D had raised this point with the Council prior, as well as explaining he had a right to the information he was seeking.

(ii) Information provided by school staff

55. In addition, Mr D complains the Council has said that he was harassing professionals at Child X’s school who allegedly had to seek support from the police. He says the Council failed to appreciate that he has parental responsibility for Child X and is entitled to contact the school to request information about his daughter. Specifically, Single Assessment 3 refers to an incident occurring at Child X’s school in July 2020. It stated that Mr D had made frequent calls to the school that month for details of Child X’s attendance and health. The Council explained the school regarded this conduct by Mr D as harassment and had reported this to the police to take action.
56. In response, Mr D told SW3 that the school was operating under the assumption that he had no right to receive the information which was incorrect. I have also considered evidence provided by Mr D from the Department for Education (DfE). This is a letter from the DfE to Child X’s school about Mr D’s complaint against the school. He complained because the school refused to provide him with information about Child X. The DfE found the school had not properly considered that Mr D had parental responsibility for Child X and that his requests for information were legitimate. It also set out the CAO by the Family Court and how Mr D’s information requests fell expressly within its wording.
57. Both the NHS and the school reported that Mr D had contacted them repeatedly seeking information about Child X. In its assessment, the Council accepted this as evidence of Mr D's harassment. In doing so, it failed to consider that both bodies considered Mr D's actions under the misunderstanding that Mr D did not have parental responsibility for Child X. This is relevant context and failure to consider it was fault. Further, the Council did not verify, using available evidence, that Mr D’s requests as described by the agencies was information he was entitled to. That information is gathered, recorded and checked systematically, and discussed with the child and their parents is key to the assessment. In this case, there is no evidence this was done which was fault.

Complaint outcome (c): The Council failed to consider concerns he held in relation to Child X’s welfare. He says these concerns, as well as other key information, did not form part of SW3’s Single Assessment.

58. Between 2018 and 2020, Mr D raised safeguarding concerns to the Council in relation to Child X suffering harm and being at risk. Mr D says these matters were not addressed by the Council in Single Assessment 3. I have not set out the nature of these safeguarding matters because I did not find fault by the Council in how they were considered. It is not my role to direct the Council’s approach to assessing a child protection issue. The scope of an assessment is a decision to be made by officers of the Council exercising their professional judgement. Unless there have been failings in the decision-making process, I cannot question the merits of that decision. The Council said the purpose of the assessment was not to comment on historical allegations and counter allegations over the past four years. It explained the purpose was to inform decision-makers of the most significant facts about Child X’s lived experience in the summer of 2020.
59. I found the concerns raised by Mr D were considered by the Council and it provided some input to address these with Mrs K. The view of the Council was the concerns did not show Child X was suffering, or at risk of suffering significant harm. Moreover, Mr D feels that Single Assessment 3, and the events which followed, should have been more comprehensive. He refers to a lack of consideration by the Council to a s47 report and medical assessment in relation to Child X. The Council has explained this information is held on the case file and can be read in combination with Single Assessment 3 and other documents.
60. I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to not include the information referenced by Mr D. The Council said the purpose of the assessment was not to comment on historical allegations and counter allegations over the past four years. I have not found fault by the Council in relation to this. The restriction I outline at Paragraph 5 (above) applies.
61. Separately, Mr D also points to Single Assessment 3 not including information which he says impacts on Child X’s health and welfare. These are matters for those exercising parental responsibility to reach a joint view about. It is not the Council’s role to direct parental decision making without an informed view that Child X was at risk of significant harm. I recognise that Mr D says the Council overreached by telling Mrs K to register Child X for a GP practice locally. I found the Council was only expressing the need for Child X to be registered. How that was later handled by Mrs K is a private matter between her and Mr D. Where there is a conflict between Mr D and Mrs K to inform decision making about matters contained in the CAO, the issue can be referred back to the courts for a decision. I have not found fault by the Council.

Complaint outcome (d): The Council failed to accommodate him at a panel meeting which was held to consider his complaint.

62. In September 2021, Mr D wrote to the Council that he was unhappy with the Stage Two Report and that he wished to escalate his complaint to Stage Three of its complaints process. A Stage Three panel meeting was subsequently held in October 2021, though this was arranged to be conducted by a video call. On the day of the panel meeting, Mr D was unable to participate in the meeting due to the video call software not working. He therefore complains the Council failed to accommodate him to hear his representations on the subject of his complaint. In turn, he says this affected the consideration of his complaint.
63. I found that because of the problems with Mr D joining the meeting, the Chair of the panel asked Mr D if he wished to continue by listening over the telephone. The minutes of that meeting show Mr D agreed to this. The Chair also had a telephone call after the panel meeting to discuss any clarifications with Mr D and gain any extra information. Though I recognise Mr D may not have been able to participate how he would have liked, what I must consider is whether he was able to make representations to the panel considering his complaint. Prior to panel meeting, Mr D provided the Council a detailed letter which expressed his areas of dissatisfaction with the Stage Two Report. He was also able to listen to the panel meeting and provide representations when this concluded. I do not therefore accept Mr D was denied the opportunity to provide input on his complaint. I have not found any fault by the Council.

Complaint outcome (e): Delays in the notes of formal meetings about Child X’s progress being sent to Mr D due to pressures on the service.

64. I have also considered Mr D’s complaint on the subject of formal minutes taken in respect of several CIN meetings. He is dissatisfied that the Council provided the minutes of the CIN meetings “substantially” later than when the meeting occurred. I have reviewed three different sets of minutes and, at most, it has taken the Council 30 days in one case to provide Mr D with a copy.
65. The Council has accepted problems in this respect which it says was due to pressures placed on the service during the Covid-19 pandemic. It says it has apologised to Mr D for this. While there was therefore fault by the Council, I must also consider whether this caused Mr D any injustice. My view is the delay by the Council in providing Mr D with the minutes of the meeting would have been a cause of frustration and inconvenience. However, I do not believe the fault meets the threshold of Mr D suffering a significant injustice to warrant any remedy than that already provided by the Council. This is because the Council did eventually provide Mr D with the minutes and because the delay did not impact on the management or outcome of the case.

Complaint outcome (f): The Council did not telephone or write to Mr D on the subject of him recording telephone calls when it said it would.

66. The Council has recognised fault in the Stage Two Report for not following up with Mr D as it agreed to do. That said, Mr D was aware of his legal position about recording telephone calls without consent. I therefore take the view that a lack of follow up action would not have caused his serious harm, loss or distress. The Council was at fault, but this does not meet the threshold of Mr D suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant a remedy beyond an apology.

Complaint outcome (g): The Council failed to provide compensation for the failings it identified during its investigation of him complaint.

67. Finally, Mr D asked the Council provide him compensation for the alleged failings. The Panel’s consideration of this point is limited to: “we are not minded suggesting that BFfC consider a small financial payment for the 3 of the 13 complaints that we found upheld.” The Council gave no rationale for this decision. Where fault has occurred, it is good administrative practice for councils to identify the impact on the complainant and how this can put right. The Council did not do this despite a clear injustice to Mr D and so I find fault.

Summary of fault and injustice

68. Subject to comments and any further evidence by the complainant and Council, my investigation has identified a number of failings by the Council:
1. The Council made speculative statements which show a clear bias against Mr D with respect to allegations of domestic abuse. These statements which present the allegations as fact were not evidence based or reflected in the findings of SW1, SW3 and other sources of information.
2. The Council made a finding of Mr D making attempts to improperly identify Mrs K’s address through Child X and other agencies. This was unsupported by evidence which instead showed Mr D was unaware of the address.
3. The Council has presented a serious finding that Mr D has been harassing agencies for information about Child X. There was no professional scrutiny to verify this with police information, Mr D or the CAO. This finding was inconsistent with the ICPC finding the agencies were acting under the assumption that Mr D did not have parental responsibility for Child X.
4. The Council expressly supported Mrs K’s wish that Child X’s nursery be in the area she lives in. This was a parental decision for Mrs K and Mr D to resolve and is inconsistent with the Council’s position as regard to a GP location. This undermined Mr D’s parental responsibility and right to make joint decisions.
5. The Council has described Mr D as using (both past and present) control over Mrs K when referring to his information requests and preferred nursery location. It is not our role to decide whether domestic abuse occurred in this way, or not. The examples used by the Council to make this judgement are issues subject to a CAO and were a private matter, not relevant to the Council's consideration of the risk.
6. The Council failed to take account of Mr D’s input before forming certain views about him. In particular, the Council did not consider Mr D’s comments about his parental responsibility. With this, he is entitled to information and to make joint decisions about Child X, including on health and education matters.
7. The Council provided Mr D the minutes of CIN reviews late, though this did not cause a significant injustice to warrant our involvement.
8. The Council did not take action it had agreed about Mr D recording calls, though this did not cause a significant injustice to warrant our involvement.
9. The Council did not give a rationale about why it should not provide a financial remedy for the failings it identified at either Stage Two or Stage Three.
69. The fault identified shows the Council taking an unbalanced, unfair and inflammatory approach towards Mr D during Single Assessment 3. The way that serious allegations were presented by the Council as verified facts caused him significant distress and upset. It should also be noted the Council’s flawed categorisations of Mr D have remained recorded and uncorrected for nearly three years. I therefore made several recommendations in order for the Council to remedy the injustice he suffered. The Council has agreed to these.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. To remedy the fault and injustice identified in this statement, the Council will perform the following actions by 24 April 2023:
1. Provide Mr D with a written apology which recognises each area of fault and injustice identified in this statement.
2. Pay Mr D £400 to serve as an acknowledgement of the overall injustice I outline at Paragraph 69 (above).
3. The Council’s case file (electronically or paper based) must make clear that the Ombudsman has found numerous failings in the preparation and content of Single Assessment 3 and how Mr D has been portrayed. The case file should include a copy of the Ombudsman’s final decision statement and refer the reader of the case file to this.
71. In addition, the Council will perform the following by 26 June 2023:
1. At a senior level, the Council will undertake a detailed review into the failings identified in this statement. This will focus on the reasons why information relating to allegations about Mr D was not verified before being presented as factual to the ICPC. The Council will implement clear guidance for caseworkers relating to the verification of information from parties to a child protection assessment and how such information is presented in formal reporting. The review will also inform service improvements and policy changes, as well as specific feedback and areas of needed training to those involved in the case.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have upheld Mr D’s complaint. There was serious fault by the Council as its assessment added credibility to unsubstantiated allegations that Mr D had perpetrated domestic violence and harassment. There were also occasions of the Council not considering Mr D’s views and acting in a way which undermined his parental responsibility. Though the failings did not affect the overall result of the assessment process, they did cause Mr D a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman