Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council started a child protection investigation following an allegation of abuse towards his child. The Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure but failed to provide an adequate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults it identified. There were also significant delays in completing the complaints procedure. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a total of £650 to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when it started a child protection investigation and care proceedings following an allegation of abuse towards his child, F. Mr X said the social workers failed to obtain his views, used inaccurate reports and he was not invited to the initial child protection conference.
2. Mr X said had the Council involved him it would have prevented the need for a safety plan and then prevented the matter going to court. He says the Council actions meant he was denied access to his children, lost his job and it has damaged his reputation.
3. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, but he is unhappy with the outcome.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. Much of Mr X’s complaint is about the actions and conduct of individual social workers. Mr X has already started a complaint with Social Work England which is the appropriate body to investigate these matters.
5. Part of Mr X’s complaint to us is that the Council has refused to consider recordings of conversations between Mr X and the social workers involved in this case. The Council has refused because Mr X recorded the social workers without their consent and therefore using them may breach GDPR. As this is about data protection the ICO is best placed to consider this element of Mr X’s complaint.
6. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to apply for a care order or the content of the accompanying reports. This is because the court considered the care order and the reports.

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 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)
9. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
10. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
14. I considered the investigation records and the investigation reports and adjudication letters from the children’s statutory complaints procedure in relation to Mr X’s complaint.
15. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child Protection

16. 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.
17. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
18. 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:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

19. If the information gathered under section 47 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 ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

20. Section 26(3) of the Children Act (1989) says all functions of the Council under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure.
21. Complaint investigations under the statutory procedure consist of three stages:
• Stage 1: Staff within the service area complained about try to resolve the complaint. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
• Stage 2: An Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) investigate the complaint. The IO writes a report which includes details of findings, conclusions and outcomes against each point of complaint (ie “upheld” or “not upheld”) and any recommendations to remedy injustice to the complainant.

Once the IO has finished the report, a senior manager should act as adjudicating officer. They will consider the complaints, the IO’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as any report from the IP, and the complainant’s desired outcomes. The adjudicating officer should write to the complainant with their decision on each complaint. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.

• Stage 3: A review panel considers the complaint. Following the panel, the members write a report containing a brief summary of the representations and their recommendations for resolution of the issues (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 19(2)). The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
3. Unless there is evidence of fault in the investigation process, the Ombudsman will not usually re-investigate a complaint which has been through the full procedure. This is because a properly conducted investigation is independent and robust. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

23. The following chronology will provide a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It will not include every detail of what happened.
24. In 2021 Mr X has a wife, Ms Z and three children. Records show the family were known to social services and the children had previously been on a child protection plan. Records show the Council had ongoing concerns that Mr X was displaying controlling and coercive behaviour towards Ms Z.
25. In February 2021 one of Mr X’s children, F, made a disclosure to someone known to the family which led to concerns about his behaviour and raised a concern about sexual abuse. This person made a referral to the Council about F’s disclosure. Two social workers visited Mr X and asked him to leave the family home and not to have any contact with the children.
26. Records show the Council held a strategy meeting the following day which concluded a Section 47 investigation should take place. The police decided to take no further action after interviewing F.
27. Social workers spoke to Mr X on the telephone about the matter and told him a safety plan had been agreed with the family not to have any contact with him for a two-week period. The social workers recorded Mr X did not want to agree to the safety plan. Social workers also recorded they offered to see Mr X to hear his views but said he made threatening comments in response. Mr X said he recorded these calls. He said the recordings show the social workers submitted misleading comments in the reports.
28. The Council held an ICPC in March 2021. Mr X was excluded from this meeting. The meeting decided the children should become subject of Child Protection Plans under the category of emotional abuse.
29. The Council then held a planning meeting to draw up a safety plan involving the maternal grandmother and the Council supervising Mr X’s contact with the children. The Council recorded Mr X was not in agreement to the safety plan.
30. The Council recorded Mr X continued having contact with the children during April 2021. The Council remained concerned about the children following reports from the school and a deterioration in their behaviour.
31. At the end of April 2021 the Council applied to the court for a care order. The court granted an interim supervision order at the end of June 2021. However, three days later following a Review Child Protection Conference the Council discontinued the case as it no longer met the threshold for the Child Protection Plan to continue.
32. Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to make his children subject to a Child Protection Pan which he says was based on unsubstantiated information and ended with no further action being taken. Mr X said he was not given the opportunity to give representation to the allegations or attend the ICPC. Mr X rejects the social worker’s assertion that he was unwilling to work with them. Mr X said the social worker’s reports which led to the safety plan and care order application were old, inaccurate and misleading. Mr X said he lost his job because of recommendations and information provided to his employer.

The Council’s investigation

33. The Council decided to investigate Mr X’s complaint at stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure in early May 2021. The investigating officer completed their report in November 2021. Mr X made six complaints and the outcomes were as follows:
• Complaint 1 – Mr X said he was not given the opportunity to provide his views around the allegation and did not say he would not take part. The investigating officer did not uphold this complaint. They found Mr X was not prepared to meet with social workers prior to the ICPC despite being given that opportunity. They found the chair called Mr X prior to the ICPC to obtain his views and Mr X was able to attend subsequent meetings.
• Complaint 2 – Records of the ICPC were inaccurate and portrayed Mr X in a negative light which affected the outcome and recommendations. The investigating officer did not uphold this complaint. They found the records and minutes were based on professional opinions.
• Complaint 3 – The social worker failed to speak to Mr X’s children prior to the ICPC. The investigating officer did not uphold this complaint. They found F was interviewed as part of the Section 47 investigation and through the police interview.
• Complaint 4 – The Council failed to consult with family members when drawing up the safety plan. The investigating officer upheld this complaint. They found the Council did not initially consult with Mr X and did not initially produce the safety plan in conjunction with Ms Z. The investigating officer recommended the Council apologise for any upset this caused.
• Complaint 5 – This complaint was about disclosures to the court during the care order process. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
• Complaint 6 – Mr X lost his job as a direct result of recommendations from the Council. The investigating officer did not uphold this complaint because the records show Mr X resigned.
34. The Council wrote to Mr X with its stage 2 adjudication letter in early March 2022. The adjudication officer agreed with most of the investigating officer’s findings however did not uphold complaint 4 as there was evidence discussions had taken place with Mr X prior to the child protection conference.
35. Mr X was unhappy with the stage 2 investigation and asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 3 the following day. Mr X said he wanted the Council to take disciplinary action against the social workers, stop using inaccurate documents which did not contain his version of events and compensation for loss of earnings due to losing his job.
36. The stage 3 panel took place in July 2022. The panel concluded the following:
• Complaint 1 – the panel changed this finding to be upheld because the evidence showed although Mr X said he was not willing to meet social workers at home, he was not given the chance to meet and discuss the matter in a different environment.
• Complaint 2 – not upheld.
• Complaint 3 – not upheld.
• Complaint 4 – The panel partially upheld this element of the complaint on the basis there was a lack of evidence showing social workers made adequate efforts to engage family members which was an action outlined on the safety plan.
• Complaint 5 – not upheld.
• Complaint 6 – not upheld.
37. The panel recommended the Council apologise to Mr X for the upheld complaints and consider making a time and trouble payment. It also recommended the Council consider whether to allow Mr X the opportunity to share private recordings he made of conversations with the social workers.
38. The Council wrote to Mr X with its stage 3 adjudication letter in mid August 2022. It accepted the findings of the stage 3 panel and apologised for not consulting with family members when drawing up the safety plan or doing more to encourage Mr X to engage with social workers to put his views across. It offered Mr X £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble he went to complaining.
39. Mr X remained unhappy and asked the adjudicating officer to consider his recordings which he says prove the social worker’s reports were misleading and inaccurate. The Council told Mr X that as he recorded the social workers without their consent, using them would be a data breach. It therefore said it could not consider them.
40. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

My findings

41. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
42. The stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel review were properly conducted. The investigating officer reviewed and considered relevant information, spoke to Mr X and carried out interviews with social workers. The stage 3 panel independently considered Mr X’s concerns and decided to uphold complaint 1 and partially upheld complaint 4. It has apologised for any injustice caused by those faults.
43. As part of this investigation, I have considered Mr X’s concerns with his complaints which were not upheld. However, much of his outstanding concerns relate to the conduct of individual social workers or around the content of reports and documents which have already been considered by the court. He is also unhappy the Council will not consider his recordings of conversations with social workers. I have explained at the top of this decision statement why I have not considered these points any further.
44. The complaints process has identified two areas of fault. The Council’s failure to ensure Mr X had the opportunity to give his views on the allegation and the failure to properly consult with family members in drawing up the safety plan. I cannot say the outcome would have been any different but for this fault, however it clearly caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council has apologised however that is not sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X so I have made a further recommendation below.
45. While I have found no fault in how the statutory process was conducted there were significant delays. Stage 2 took nine months and stage 3 took 5 months which is well in excess of statutory timescales. The delay was fault. The Council has offered Mr X £250. However, in line with our guidance I have made a further recommendation to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble caused to Mr X by these delays.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
• Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused to him when social workers failed to give him adequate opportunity to put his views across during a child protection investigation and failed to properly involve family members in drawing up a safety plan.
• Pay Mr X £350 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble caused by the significant delays in completing the statutory children’s complaints procedure between 2021 and 2023.
• Remind social workers and relevant officers involved in child protection investigations to ensure they give alleged perpetrators adequate opportunity to put their views across prior to the Initial Child Protection Conference.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman