Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to complete a review of record-keeping in its safeguarding hub which it agreed in its response to Ms B’s complaint. Having accepted that it had completed an inaccurate assessment, it also told Ms B it would notify another agency that the assessment was inaccurate, and then did not do so. It has agreed to write to the agency in question, and has agreed to complete its record-keeping review without further delay.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, complains about an assessment the Council wrote in 2020 about the welfare of her son. I refer to her son as C.
2. Ms B says the assessment was inaccurate, but the Council refused to remove it from C’s file for over a year. In that period, she says, the Council made safeguarding decisions about C which were inherently flawed because they were based on the inaccurate assessment. She also says the assessment was shared with partner agencies without the Council subsequently telling them it was inaccurate.
3. Ms B also complains that the assessment contained private medical information about her, which was then disclosed to her ex-partner (C’s father) without her consent.
4. Ms B says the poor assessment of C’s safety meant he was not protected from his father, which, in turn, meant he suffered two further assaults.
5. Ms B says that – apart from distress to her and C – this matter cost her money in legal fees and medical costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I considered information provided by Ms B and the Council, including Ms B’s complaints and the Council’s responses.
12. I considered the statutory guidance on the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure, Getting the best from complaints. I refer to this procedure as ‘the statutory complaints procedure’.
13. I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
14. Ms B 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

15. If a council has investigated something under the statutory complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
16. The Council considered Ms B’s complaint at all three stages of the procedure and accepted that its assessment of C was inadequate. It concluded that the assessment failed to mention important information and contained inaccuracies.
17. The Council agreed to:
• carry out a review of how it dealt with safeguarding concerns Ms B raised about C.
• carry out a review of record-keeping in its safeguarding hub.
• remove the assessment from C’s records.
• write a new, more accurate report about the Council’s involvement with C.
• retrieve the assessment from those who have a copy of it and replace it with the new report.
• make a payment of £100 to Ms B to recognise delays to its complaints procedure.
• make a further payment of £400 to recognise the injustice arising from the poor-quality assessment.
18. As the Council has properly considered this matter under the statutory complaints procedure, and as there do not appear to be obvious flaws in the considerations of the complaint by either the stage 2 investigator or the stage 3 review panel, there is nothing I can add to the Council’s findings.
19. I have, however, looked into whether the Council has completed the actions it agreed in response to Ms B’s complaints. I have also considered whether she, or C, have any injustice which remains unremedied by the Council.

Actions agreed following Ms B’s complaint

20. The Council has provided evidence that it completed the safeguarding review it promised in its final complaint response. It has provided an undated chronology and a case summary which, although dated earlier, appears to have been put on C’s records in August 2022.
21. The case summary gives a frank account of the Council’s failings in C’s case and will be clearly visible on his file for future reference. I am satisfied that this means the Council has done the review it promised.
22. Although it appears the review was only completed in August 2022 – after I made enquiries to the Council about it – the Council had offered no set timescale and there was no injustice to Ms B or C, so this does not justify a finding of fault.
23. Despite telling Ms B that it would complete its review of record-keeping in its safeguarding hub by the end of March 2022, this remains incomplete. The Council says a previous manager did this but left without sharing it. Whatever the reason, the Council has failed to do what it agreed, for which it is at fault. It should complete this review without further delay.
24. Although the Council says it cannot remove the erroneous assessment from its records, it has deleted all the content. This appears to have been completed in June, almost four months after the Council agreed to do it.
25. I would not have expected the Council to delete the assessment before the outcome of the complaint (as Ms B wanted), although I would have expected it to do this without delay once it agreed to do so. It agreed this in February 2022 and said it would do it by the end of April. It did it at the end of June – two months late. This was fault by the Council, although there was no injustice to Ms B or C from the delay.
26. Ms B has provided evidence that the Council sent a copy of the inaccurate assessment to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). The Council agreed to write to partner agencies to notify them that the assessment they hold is inaccurate and has been withdrawn. It did not write to CAFCASS about this, which was fault by the Council.
27. The Council did not do a new assessment of C, although this was because Ms B did not want it to. This was not fault by the Council.

Financial remedy

28. The Council, in addition to the remedies set out above, offered Ms B £500: £100 to recognise delays to the complaints procedure and £400 to recognise the other faults.
29. I have considered financial remedies we have recommended in other cases where there have been similar complaint delays. I am satisfied that it would not be proportionate to recommend that the Council increase its offer of £100.
30. I have also considered the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which says we usually recommend payments of between £100 and £300 to recognise distress, unless it has been severe or prolonged. The Council’s offer of £400 exceeds this range.
31. Although Ms B has suggested that the Council’s failings directly caused C to suffer physical harm at the hands of his father, I am not a child safeguarding professional and therefore do not have the subject area expertise to make such a finding. Because of this, although I accept that Ms B has found this whole process very upsetting, I do not have grounds to recommend that the Council increase its £400 offer for distress.
32. I am also unable to say with any certainty that Ms B’s medical costs were incurred because of the Council. As a result, I do not consider it appropriate to recommend that she receive any kind of reimbursement.
33. Although Ms B says she needed to spend money on legal fees, and that she only needed to do this because of the Council’s assessment, this, again, is not a finding I can make. I cannot second-guess a judge’s decision-making, so I would not be able to say how much the assessment affected the court case, how much Ms B needed the representation that she paid for, and the degree to which this may have been the Council’s fault. Even if I decided the Council was responsible, I would not be able to confidently calculate a remedy. So I will not comment on this matter further.

Back to top

Agreed actions

34. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to:
• complete its review of record-keeping in its safeguarding hub.
• write to CAFCASS to confirm that the assessment it provided was inaccurate, has been withdrawn, and should be deleted.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The Council was at fault for failing to complete two actions it agreed in response to Ms B’s complaint. The agreed actions remedy her injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I did not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council disclosed private medical information about her to C’s father. We generally expect people to refer complaints about data protection to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman