Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support and assistance to herself and her sons and failed to follow proper procedure when carrying out assessments and child protection investigations. She also complained about failings in the Council’s communication with her and incomplete and inaccurate record keeping. The Council’s failures in communication and support for Mrs X and her family are fault. As is the failure to follow to child protection procedures and to properly record decisions. These faults have caused Mrs X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support and assistance to herself and her sons and failed to follow proper procedure when carrying out assessments and child protection investigations. She also complained about failings in the Council’s communication with her and incomplete and inaccurate record keeping. In particular Mrs X is concerned about:
• the Council’s failure to provide support or make appropriate adjustments, both prior to and following Mrs X’s autism diagnosis, or to properly consider the role autism played in her case.
• failings in and interruptions to the Child in Need process.
• the conduct of the s47 investigations; and
• the Council’s failure to follow the proper procedure for investigating suspected fabricated illness.
2. Mrs X also complains about the way her complaints were investigated at each stage of the statutory complaint process. She has ongoing concerns about complaints which have been upheld but where she is unclear about or not satisfied with the apology, any learning and /or the remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mrs X;
• Mrs X 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

Law and guidance

The Children act 1989

7. Councils are under the duty to safeguard children in their respective areas who are in need of support. If necessary, they must provide services which assist those children’s families to meet their needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17(1))
8. When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is likely to suffer significant harm, there should be a strategy discussion involving the council, the Police, the health service and other relevant agencies. This might take the form of a multi-agency meeting or phone calls and more than one discussion may be necessary. A strategy discussion should inform whether the local authority should initiate a Section 47 enquiry in accordance with the 1989 Act (s47 enquiries).
9. 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.

Statutory complaints procedures

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. 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.
14. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, 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.

What happened here

15. Mrs X has two sons, C and D. In the Spring of 2017 the Council carried out an assessment of the family’s needs. This concluded there was not enough evidence to meet the threshold for intervention by children’s services in the form of a Child in Need plan. At around the same time the family court requested the Council complete a report under section 7 of the Children Act. This report identified concerns regarding possible harm to both C and D and recommended they be placed on a Child in Need plan.
16. In October 2017 the Council held a strategy meeting and obtained legal advice regarding concerns about exaggerated or fabricated illness. Further meetings were held in November 2017 to consider the children’s medical chronologies followed by a review strategy meeting in January 2018. The Council’s section 47 enquiries concluded the concerns round Fabricated and Induced Illness (FII) could not be substantiated but recommended the continuation of the Child in Need plan.
17. The Council held further strategy discussions in November 2018. The records say there were concerns about FII following a consultation at an educational resource where there were concerns about the odd features of the case and Mrs X’s presentation. The section 47 enquiries concluded the concerns were substantiated and the children were at continuing risk of substantial harm. The outcomes record notes that as there was a possibility the case was FII holding an ICPC could escalate any danger. As such it would not be safe to convene a conference. The case would be conducted under the FII protocol and taken through a series of legal meetings to the point it went to court, or the Council was satisfied FII was not the prime issue in the case.
18. The Council did not inform Mrs X of its concerns until January 2019 when it informed her it intended to issue care proceedings on short notice. A few days later the court granted an interim care order for C and he was placed at a special residential school. D remained at home with Mrs X.

The complaint

19. In November 2020 Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council about the actions of social workers involved with her family since January 2017. She had not been able to raise her complaint until this point due to the ongoing care proceedings.
20. Mrs X raised a total of 57 concerns. Eight related to actions in 2017, 33 to actions in 2018 and a further 16 in relation to actions in 2019. These complaints included:
• issues of poor communication and a lack of transparency which Mrs X asserted led to her being excluded from social care procedures and which put her and her family at a disadvantage in the legal proceedings.
• concerns that although social workers had been aware since 2017 that Mrs X might be autistic they tried to persuade other professionals to disregard her diagnosis and did not provide her with any support.
• concerns that the Council had assessed Mrs X’s family as having social care needs but had failed to provide any support or assistance, which caused C in particular significant harm;
• Mrs X was not given any indication in the months before the Council commenced legal proceedings that it had concerns regarding her parenting; and
• failings and errors in the Fabricated and Induced Illness (FII) investigation process.
21. Mrs X told the Council the treatment they had received had had an enormous impact on the family. Mrs X was confused and distressed by the treatment and frustrated by the lack of opportunity to explain her actions. She told the Council C and D were also distress by the process and that C had been traumatised by his experience in care. Mrs X asked the Council to acknowledge its errors and the impact this has had on the family, and to provide compensation.
22. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in January 2021, addressing each issue in turn. The Council accepted there were occasions when its communication could have been clearer and occasions when delay occurred. There were also incidents of practice that fell below the Council’s expected standards. But it did not accept it had made serious mistakes or that it had treated Mrs X unfairly.
23. Mrs X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered at stage two of the complaint procedure. Mrs X employed an independent social worker to assist her in understanding and responding to the Council’s stage one response. In addition to her original complaints Mrs X also raised eight complaints about the stage one investigation and response to her complaint.
24. Mrs X was unhappy the stage one investigation was completed by an officer who was implicated in several of her complaints. She also complained the officer had not contacted her to request more information; had made assumptions about her needs; was discriminatory; and made an unacceptable and inappropriate comment about her. The investigation was also not completed within the statutory timeframe.
25. In addition she considered the stage one investigation was inadequate as it did not consider her complaints relating to education or C’s mental health provision. And it wrongly used the completed care proceedings as a reason not to investigate some of her concerns.
26. The stage two investigation upheld Mrs X’s complaints about the stage 1 investigation, save for Mrs X’s concerns regarding the failure to investigate her complaints relating to education. The investigating officer made no finding.
27. In relation to her original 57 concerns the stage 2 investigation upheld 30 complaints, partially upheld a further four complaints and did not uphold five complaints. It also made no findings in relation to 18 complaints.
28. The stage two Investigating Officer also considered Mrs X’s desired outcomes and commented that there should be an acknowledgement for any failings identified in the stage two report and an appropriate acknowledgement of the stress and trauma caused by the Council’s poor practice. They also suggested the Council consider financial redress to acknowledge the avoidable distress, harm, risk or other unfair impact on Mrs X. And that the Council acknowledge the inadequacies in the stage 1 investigation.
29. In addition the stage two report made over 30 recommendations the majority of which were for service improvements and learning.
30. The Council considered the stage two report and wrote to Mrs X in October 2021. It apologised for the delay in completing the stage two investigation. The Council agreed with each of the findings and apologised for Mrs X’s experiences in relation to the upheld complaints. It also apologised that Mrs X did not receive the response she should have had at stage one when it could have done more to work more helpfully with her.
31. In relation to Mrs X’s desired outcomes the Council acknowledged there were areas of fault and apologised for the distress and stress this caused. It also offered to pay Mrs X £1000 to acknowledge this distress. The Council also agreed with the stage two recommendations and confirmed they would be actioned.
32. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and asked for her complaints to be considered by the stage three panel. In her submission to the panel Mrs X explained her dissatisfaction related to both matters that were upheld and those that were not. She said she needed to feel that the ramifications for her family had been fully understood and appreciated. And that where the Council accepted fault she needed to feel that lessons had been learned. Mrs X was concerned that not all upheld complaints had associated recommendations, and that some of the recommendations did not link to her complaints or were too vague to assist her.
33. In addition, Mrs X complained about the delay in the stage two investigation process and the scope of the investigation. Mrs X asserted there were many elements of her complaint that had not been investigated or investigated thoroughly. She was also concerned the stage two investigation report referred to and reproduced extracts from the confidential court judgement in the care proceedings.
34. The stage three review panel considered Mrs X’s complaints over two meetings in April and May 2022. Mrs X attended the first meeting and was able to participate but part way through the second meeting she asked that the deliberations continue without her and that the panel refer to her written submissions instead.
35. The panel determined that all the complaints upheld at stage two should continue to be upheld and that outcome of four complaints where no findings were made at stage 2 should be changed to upheld. The panel also changed the outcome of a further complaint from not upheld to no finding.
36. In addition the panel endorsed the recommendations from the stage two investigation and made 13 additional recommendations and comments. It also made recommendations and comments regarding Mrs X’s submission to the panel.
37. The Council considered the panel’s findings and recommendations and wrote to Mrs X in June 2022. It confirmed it agreed with the panel’s findings and set out how it would address the panel’s recommendations.
38. The Council apologised for the inadequate response at stage one of Mrs X’s complaint and for the areas of service that had not been delivered as well as they could have been. It also assured Mrs X that following and stage two investigation it held a reflective and learning session with all staff members involved and put together an action plan.
39. Mrs X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. While Mrs X considers over a dozen of her complaints have been resolved there are around 20 upheld complaints where she does not feel she there has been an appropriate apology or remedy, or adequate learning. This includes complaints about failures to provide therapy agreed for C in October 2017 or the recommended therapy and direct work it identified D needed in October 2017. Mrs X arranged private play therapy for D in 2018 at a cost of £480 and would like the Council to reimburse this sum.
40. In addition Mrs X sourced her own advocate to assist her at Child in Need meetings in 2017. She also incurred fees of £561 in employing an independent social worker to assist her in the complaint process. She would also like the Council to reimburse these fees.
41. Mrs X is also concerned about the number of complaints where the stage two investigation and review panel made no findings and where her complaint was misunderstood.
42. In particular Mrs X is concerned neither the stage two investigation nor the stage three panel properly considered or investigated her complaints about:
• why the Child in Need process was interrupted;
• a Fair Access Panel’s (FAP) decision not to provide tutoring;
• not being told refusing an educational placement for C would trigger care proceedings;
• a lack of transparency in the November 2018 when she was not told the Council was investigating her family under the FII procedure;
• a lack of scrutiny of the Council’s FII investigation and its failure to follow proper procedure;
• not being able to participate in D’s child protection conferences between January and July 2019. Mrs X says the stage two investigator wrongly interviewed C’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) rather than the IRO in D’s case, and the stage three panel considered the wrong period.
• failings in communication and contradictory information regarding the need for and urgency of care proceedings, and the failure to consider Mrs X’s transcript of a conversation in January 2019.
43. Mrs X has provided a copy of the transcript of this conversation as part of my investigation. She has also provided a recording of the conversation from which the transcript was taken. Mrs X did not share the audio recording with the Council. The recording confirms an officer told Mrs X they were going to court due to suspected child abuse and that as the concerns were so substantial they were not providing the normal five days’ notice. The Officer explained that as part of this process they had had to consider whether Mrs X would run away or kill her children.
44. The officer told Mrs X the Council had obtained some medical information as part of its investigation, but that health professionals would not provide further information without a court order. In addition the officer told Mrs X the concerns centred on Mrs X’s refusal of an educational placement for C. They felt Mrs X should have been pragmatic and made arrangements for C to attend. Mrs X asserts the officers statements were untrue and are not supported by the documentation held in the Council’s records.
45. Mrs X also remains concerned about the appropriateness of some of the recommendations and how they are implemented. Mrs X says she has not received the recommended feedback regarding the FAP minutes or a copy of the FII procedure in place at the time. She is also concerned that there remains a lack of understanding of autism in the Council’s children’s services.
46. In response to my enquiries the Council acknowledges its case notes demonstrate that it did not deliver the full range of support and assistance identified in the Child in Need process. It says Child in Need visits were recorded but it did not complete Child in Need meetings or reviews. There is no record in the case files of the reason for the lapse in usual procedure. Its stage one response to Mrs X’s complaint notes the actions from Child in Need meetings did not progress as expected as the safeguarding interventions took precedence.
47. It says the professional network was not meeting with any planned consistency, which it acknowledges would have impeded the quality of communication and a coordinated approach. This in turn created delays in providing the agreed therapy and support.
48. The Council says that in line with as stage two recommendation it has reviewed the Child in Need process to ensure there are checks and balances at the weekly management meetings to review any cases at risk of drift.
49. The Council has now located copies of the minutes of the FAP meeting in October 2018. These notes are very brief. They simply name an education provider but do not provide any reason for preferring this to private tuition.
50. In relation to the initial section 47 enquiries the Council is satisfied there was management oversight and visits to the family during this period but acknowledges the section 47 investigation was delayed. It notes that national guidance on section 47 enquiries sets a 45 working day timeframe for the initial assessment. It also states that once a strategy meeting has been held any case conference planned should be held within 15 working days.
51. While no case conference was planned in this instance it accepts that the investigation process was delayed. The Council considers it appropriate to for time scales to be extended due to the demands and complexity of some cases. But the reasoning for this needs to be clear and explained by the decision-making managers. It acknowledges this did not happen in this case.
52. The Council says its procedure for investigating suspected FII is part of the multi-agency procedures which are provided and maintained online. It says it does not keep off-line copies of the procedure as reference to the online versions ensures officers always use the most up to date guidance. The version currently available online is not the procedure in place in 2018. That procedure was revised in January 2019. The Council provided Mrs X with a copy of that revised version in April 2021.
53. Although the Council is unable to provide a copy of the procedure in place in 2018, it says it would have reflected the Government guidance in place at the time – Safeguarding Children in whom illness is fabricated or induced. This guidance has since been withdrawn.
54. The Council states its application of the procedure is recorded in the strategy discussions. The record from October 2017 state the reason for the discussion was concerns that the children were exposed to harm through fabricated or exaggerated illness. The record also confirms the decision to carry out s47 enquiries and that the parents would not be informed at that stage due to concerns about fabricated illness.
55. The record from November 2018 also confirms a decision to make s47 enquiries with a strategy meeting to be held to plan the work. It notes that as there is a suspicion of FII the procedure for that must be followed. There are no other references in the strategy discussions to the FII procedure or how that would affect the investigation.
56. The Council’s records also show it took legal advice on how to proceed, given its concerns about FII, but it has not provided copies of any legal advice.
57. The Council has provided details of the actions it has taken to implement the stage two and stage three recommendations. This has included apologising to Mrs X, a review of its documentation and procedures, training, and reflective sessions.

Analysis

58. As set out above, where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
59. There were significant delays at each stage of the investigation process, which took over a year and a half to complete. We expect councils to comply with statutory timeframes and such significant delays are not acceptable and amount to fault.
60. Notwithstanding this delay, the stage two is through, and the report is detailed and reasoned. The stage three panel endorsed most of the stage two decisions but changed four complaints where no findings were made to upheld and changed the outcome of a further complaint from not upheld to no finding. Mrs X attended the meetings and was able to make detailed submissions to the stage three panel. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its findings.
61. The stage two investigation and stage three panel have found significant areas of fault in the way the Council has communicated with and supported Mrs X and her family. It has identified failings in the Child in Need process, delays in the section 47 investigations and failings in the application of the FII procedure.
62. In several cases Mrs X would like greater investigation of the reasons for the Council’s failings and an explanation for the decisions it made.
63. Our expectation that councils will meet statutory timeframes also applies to child protection procedures. In this instance the Council substantially exceeded the 45 working day time frame to complete the section 47 enquiries. Delays of this nature are clearly unacceptable. While it is possible to extend this timeframe in exceptional circumstances, this should not be common practice. And the reasons for any extension should be properly recorded.
64. It is clear, and the Council accepts, there were failings in the use of the FII protocol, but the exact nature of and reasons for these failings are unclear. As the care proceedings were not based on allegations of FII Mrs X asserts the stage two investigation and stage three panel could and should have considered these issues in more detail. She is concerned they accepted the Council had failed to follow the correct procedure without properly investigating why. Mrs X is keen that there is an understanding of why the procedure was not followed so that there is learning.
65. Although there are references in the case records to the need to follow the FII procedure there is no clear record of how this was applied. Nor is there a record of the reason for not following it. The Council’s actions appear to be based on the legal advice it received. The Council did not share the legal advice with the stage two investigator or review panel and has not provided me with a copy. As this advice is subject to legal privilege I cannot require the Council to share it.
66. There is however reference to the legal advice in the case records. This states that legal advice in November 2018 was that the Council should go direct to court, but that the case could not be rushed. It would need to draw together evidence from a variety of sources and the social worker would then write a detailed court report. This was all done without informing Mrs X of the investigation or the Council’s concerns.
67. There is no record of when the Council decided not to proceed based on FII or how it made the decision to commence court proceedings without regard to its Public Law Outline (PLO) duties. The failure to properly document its actions and decisions is clearly a concern and amounts to fault.
68. Without a copy of the FII procedure in place at the time it is not possible to say exactly what should have happened, or how far from the procedure the Council deviated. However, the revised procedure does not appear to have made significant amendments to the procedure in place at the time in question. And a review of other procedures related to FII in place at the time suggests there was a consistent approach to FII cases. None of the policies direct the Council to carry out covert investigations for protracted periods without holding an ICPC or following the PLO procedure.
69. While it is apparent the Council did not follow established FII procedures the failings in record keeping means it is not possible to establish why the Council took the action it did or made the decisions it did in 2018/ 2019. I do not consider it would be useful to interview the officers involved in the decision making. Given the passage of time, it is unlikely this would assist or add any clarity.
70. I also note the stage two investigator interviewed officers and reviewed the case records but could not identify the reasons for the Council’s decision to deviate from the established procedure. I do not consider I will be able to add to that or achieve anything more by further investigation.
71. Mrs X also wants an explanation for the interruption to the Child in Need process in 2017 and 2018. Unfortunately, there is no indication in the Council’s records as to why this was not pursued. There does not appear to have been an active decision not to provide the identified support or to suspend the plan, but rather it seems this was overlooked as the Council’s focus shifted to the section 47 enquiries. This is clearly not acceptable. The required provision and support identified should have continued alongside any other action the Council was considering. The Council has introduced weekly management meetings to review and Child in Need cases at risk of drift.
72. Mrs X says the failure to provide the agreed therapy and support had a detrimental impact on C and D. Mrs X paid privately for the therapy for D, and I consider the Council should reimburse the cost of this.
73. The Council has now provided copies of the FAP meeting minutes, but these are so brief they do not offer any explanation for the panel’s decision to refuse the request for tuition. The failure to properly record decision reasons or to communicate them to Mrs X is fault. As was the failure to locate these records at any stage during the complaints process.
74. Mrs X is concerned that the stage two investigation and review panel misunderstood a number of her complaints and wrongly made no finding or did not uphold them. Mrs X’s complaints related to a lack of communication and transparency regarding the Council’s concerns about Mrs X and her sons; its assessments; the significance of her refusal to accept a place at an educational placement; the FII investigation; and the need for an emergency application to court. However, the stage two investigation and review panel made their decisions on the basis it was not their role to consider or interpret the threshold for professional decisions. And that the Council must always have regard to safeguarding concerns. Mrs X does not dispute that matters can be escalated to safeguarding but the basis of her complaint was the way this was, or was not, communicated to her.
75. It is clear from the documentation that there were failings in the Council’s communication with Mrs X. As set out above it did not communicate its concerns or the nature of its enquires with Mrs X or follow procedures which would have required it to be more transparent. Mrs X was given only limited information about the Council’s concerns and investigations and its intention to commence court proceedings.
76. Mrs X provided the stage two investigation with a transcript of her conversation with officers in January 2019 regarding the intention to issue care proceedings. She is concerned this was not available to the stage three review panel. The stage two investigator considered the accuracy of the transcript could not be verified as the as the officer no longer worked for the Council. But as this formed part of Mrs X’s supporting evidence I consider it should have been included in the information provided to the review panel.
77. Mrs X did not provide a copy of the audio recording of the meeting in January 2019. And there is no record that she informed either the stage two investigator or the review panel that she had this additional evidence. Had the stage two investigator and the review panel had this evidence they could have investigated Mrs X’s concerns and reached a finding. I consider it likely these complaints would have been upheld.
78. Mrs X’s complaint also included concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the Council’s records. She is concerned these complaints were treated as data protection issues and not properly investigated. The stage two report notes it is not possible to verify or validate what had been ‘spoken’ or how the spoken word had been included within the case file recordings.
79. Mrs X says the poor record keeping includes failing to provide correct job titles/names of professionals, failing to attribute an opinion to the correct professional, and failing to accurately record what a professional has said. Mrs X also questions the accuracy of information contained in emails, assessments, and case recordings. She asserts the errors would not have occurred or could have been corrected immediately if the Council had involved her in assessments and sought to verify the information it gathered. Mrs X would like the opportunity to go through the Council’s records and correct the inaccuracies.
80. I do not consider this appropriate in this instance. While Mrs X disagrees with many of the entries in the Council’s records, she was not a party to these discussions or emails. It would not be appropriate to retrospectively attempt to correct or validate information or the views expressed by third parties several years ago.
81. I would however expect the Council to ensure that officers gather and accurately record up to date information and involve parents in assessments where possible.
82. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for the inadequacies in the stage one investigation and for the failings identified in the stage two investigation. It has also formally acknowledged and apologised for the failings identified in the stage three investigation.
83. In addition it has offered to pay her £1000 in recognition of the distress she has experienced as a result of the Council’s failings. This is in line with our guidance on remedies.
84. It has also actioned the stage two and stage three recommendations. The Council’s action plans confirm that autism training began in February 2022 and will be provided annually. It has also held group reflective sessions and learning events with reminders including the need for clear record keeping and fact checking, the need to be clear in communication and sharing decision making. And it has provided refresher training on the process of legal planning, pre-proceedings and issuing proceedings.
85. The Council has reviewed its information leaflets and the FII procedure and carried out training. It has also arranged for complaints training for all staff.
86. Mrs X is concerned about recommendations to apply the guidelines agreed to address Mrs X’s autism to other adults with autism, and the need for an interactive meeting at stage two of the complaint process. She is concerned that rather than rigidly apply her guidelines or require a meeting the Council should consider individual needs.
87. The Council’s action plan for these recommendations recognises that individuals have different needs and that it may identify other personalised communication requirements. It will consider reasonable adjustments to ensure a personalised approach wherever possible.
88. I am satisfied these actions are appropriate responses to the stage two and three recommendations.
89. The stage three panel also recommended the Council ensure that judgements made and recorded in a single assessment, in a section to which the complainant does not have access, must be correctly evidenced, and verified. The action plan says the Council has read all three assessments and there is no reference to Mrs X having a mental health problem.
90. This is not correct. On the first page of the single assessment dated 4 May 2018, under the parent/ carer section, the mental health box has been ticked. The mental health box is also ticked in relation to other family/ household member on the single assessment dated 15 January 2019. These documents should be reviewed and amended as appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

91. The Council has agreed to
• pay Mrs X the £1000 it has offered in recognition of the distress she experienced as a result of the service failings;
• pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the impact of the significant delays in the statutory complaint process;
• reimburse Mrs X £480 in respect of the private therapy she arranged for D;
• reimburse Mrs X £561 in respect of the independent social worker she employed to assist her in the complaints process;
• review and amend the single assessments dated 4 May 2018 and 15 January 2019.
92. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

93. The Council’s failures in communication and support for Mrs X and her family are fault. As is the failure to follow to child protection procedures and properly record decisions. These faults have caused Mrs X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman