Summary: Mr X complained about the delay in the Council returning Miss Y’s child protection check so she could register as a childminder. He said this has caused her avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council accepted there was delay in processing Mrs Y’s child protection checks. It has already made suitable service improvements and we consider the remedy it offered to Miss Y in recognition of the injustice it caused her to be suitable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Miss Y about the delay of approximately 16 weeks in the Council completing the child protection checks to allow her to become a registered childminder following her application in summer 2022. This significantly delayed Miss Y’s becoming registered and earning an income. This in turn caused her avoidable stress.
2. Mr X also complains about the Council saying it would return the checks to Ofsted sooner than it did. Miss Y said this raised her expectations, caused avoidable uncertainty and frustration when it did not happen.
3. Mr X would like the Council to apologise to Miss Y. He would also like to the Council to remedy the avoidable stress and uncertainty the delays have caused Miss Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have considered the complaint and Mr X's and Miss Y’s comments. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Mr X and the organisation have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s procedure for child protection checks

9. Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) conduct checks on persons who already have, or are applying for, positions with unsupervised access to children.
10. For these checks the Council’s role is to look if the applicants or those who may have shared an address with them may pose risk to the children.
11. To carry out its role, the Council follows an internal procedure. Currently, the procedure says that the Council should return the child protection checks to Ofsted within:
• 7 days for unknown applicants; and
• 14 days for known applicants.
12. However, at the time of Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s timeframe for child protection checks were:
• 14 days for known applicants; and
• 28 days for unknown applicants.

What happened

13. In July 2022 Miss Y applied to the Council to become a registered childminder.
14. Between August and November 2022 Ofsted chased the Council for Miss Y’s child protection checks on six separate occasions.
15. In November Miss Y emailed the Council twice and asked if there was any progress in her case. She said she had a waiting list of children who were now searching for another childminder as she could not complete registration. She said it had been over 16 weeks since she applied to be a childminder and Ofsted were still telling her it had no child protection checks to be able to register her.
16. On the same day the Council told her it would complete them by the end of the week, but this did not happen
17. Between December 2022 and January 2023 Ofsted chased the Council for Miss Y’s child protection checks on four occasions.
18. Mr X emailed the Council and complained on behalf of Miss Y in early January 2023. Two weeks later the Council told Mr X it had done the checks. The Council’s records show it submitted one of three checks on that day, with the further two submitted to Ofsted by the end of the month.
19. In early-February the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for the delay in completing the child protection checks. It confirmed it sent the checks to Ofsted and said that Mr X could complain to the Local Government Ombudsman if he was not happy with the outcome of his complaint, which he did in March 2023.

Analysis

20. The Council accepted that it did not follow its child protection checks procedure when it dealt with Miss Y’s application. This is fault. The Council’s actions caused Miss Y avoidable distress and uncertainty about when she would be able to get registered and start work as a child minder.
21. Furthermore, the Council accepted that it should have finalised Miss Y’s check in November 2022 as it confirmed it would to Miss Y. Instead, the Council sent her checks in January 2023. Additionally, the evidence suggests the Council completed all three sets of checks only after Mr X had chased it for confirmation. This is fault. The Council raised Mr X’s and Miss Y’s expectations about how quickly she would be able to finalise her registration as a childminder.
22. The Council told us that since Mr X complaint it has:
• reduced the deadlines for completing the child protection checks to those listed in paragraph eleven;
• successfully kept the shorter deadlines ever since;
• created a tracker sheet which allows it to see what checks had been done and when. It allows the Council to see what stage each check is at; and
• ensured there is a wider team overseeing the child protection checks.
23. We welcome the service improvements the Council has already implemented. We consider they are in line with what we would have recommended, and we will not make any more service improvement recommendations.
24. The Council accepted that its actions have caused Miss Y an injustice. It has offered to pay Miss Y £500 for the avoidable distress and uncertainty it has caused her between summer 2022 and January 2023.
25. We have published guidance to explain how we determine remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible, as in the case of Miss Y, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment.
26. When we recommend a payment for distress or time and trouble, we only take account of avoidable distress that is the result of fault by the Council. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of up to £500.
27. Taking into account:
• the length of the delay in processing Miss Y’s child protection checks;
• the raised expectation and the uncertainty after the Council did not complete the checks when it said it would; and
• the avoidable uncertainty about when Miss Y would be able to complete her registration.
28. We consider the remedy offered by the Council is suitable and in line with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council accepted it delayed completing Miss Y checks and offered her a suitable remedy. Our investigation is now complete.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman