Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about its failures for several years to ensure his son attended school. It failed to send him copy minutes promptly, delayed, failed to follow its own Practice Standards, and had weak management oversight. This caused him and his son distress. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. decide his son suffered neglect from his mother who he lives with;
2. respond to his correspondence and provide copy minutes as requested;
3. act on recommendations made at the Stage 3 complaints panel meeting; and
4. ensure his son received an education for almost four years.
2. As a result, the distress he suffered, knowing the lack of education will affect his son’s life chances, affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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

Working together to improve school attendance (May 2022)

8. The government stated for persistent and severe absence, all partners should consider working together to make this group the top priority for support. This may include specific support with attendance or a whole family plan but, ‘may also include consideration for an education, health and care plan or an alternative form of education provision where necessary to overcome the barriers to being in school.’
9. The guidance goes on to say where all avenues of support have been provided, but severe absence continues, it is likely to amount to neglect.

Back to top

Council Practice Standards (October 2022)

10. Each child’s story must have a case summary updated within the previous three months. This must include a summary of progress against the plan and a summary of the impact of direct work with the child. (Standard 2-Assessment of Need)
11. Assessments must be based on good analysis, timeliness, and evidence of transparent honest conversations with parents and carers which allows for a proportionate response to the needs of the child and family. (Standard 2-Assessment of Need)
12. Assessment is a continuous process, is regularly reviewed, and clearly linked to the plan that details actions to meet the changing needs of the child. Managers are expected to maintain regular oversight of the assessment. (Standard 2-Assessment of Need)
13. Management oversight must be recorded at all stages of work with a child and managers must ensure there is a clear record and rationale for decisions. This must be recorded as a minimum every 3 months. (Standard 6-Management of Practice)
14. Formal observation of practice done by the supervising manager will be recorded in supervision every 12 months. (Standard 6-Management of Practice)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

15. Mr Y complained to us in October 2023. This means we would normally only look at the Council’s actions from October 2022. This is because the law says 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)
16. I exercised discretion to investigate this complaint from May 2021. This was because Mr Y made his complaint to the Council in May 2022. The Council sent him a letter accepting the stage 3 panel recommendations in September 2023, sixteen months later.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

17. I considered all the information Mr Y sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

18. Mr Y and his former wife, Mrs Z, separated several years ago. When she moved out, she took their son with her who started a new primary school. During his last year there, the head teacher called Mr Y about his son’s lack of attendance. His son then moved to a secondary school where he continued to have attendance problems. The school told him they had problems contacting Mrs Z about it. As a result, the school made a referral to the Council’s Children’s Services about his poor attendance.
19. Mr Y claimed a social worker visited Mrs Z unannounced but, there was no response. The Council held regular Child In Need (CIN) meetings about his son and had a CIN plan. He was unhappy the Council said there was no child neglect, but this changed when a senior social worker took over the case and chaired meetings.
20. Mr Y complained despite this, nothing really changed, and his son continued to have poor attendance, which concerned him as he would soon be taking GCSE exams. He was unhappy the Council closed the case without any resolution and his son still received no education. This was the case for more than three years.
21. He also complained about it failing to record minutes properly, distribute them in a timely manner, the high turnover of staff, and failing to carry out action promised under each stage of its complaints procedure.

Complaint a): decide his son suffered neglect from his mother who he lives with

22. In August 2021, the chair of the CIN meeting noted the plan was not working. The meeting reviewed it and made changes. The minutes stated they were to meet again four weeks later but if there was no change, there would then be concerns of neglect. In this situation, it would then consider a ‘strategy meeting’ as both parents were not working together in the child’s best interest. A strategy meeting is held when it is suspected a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, serious harm. It is used to decide whether to start enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This would mean carrying out a child protection investigation to assess if there was a risk of significant harm to a child.
23. In November, the social worker completed a Graded Care Profile for ‘neglect’. This found the only concern for his son was about his school attendance. Needs around emotional care and social interaction were met.
24. Mr Y was unhappy the Council failed to start a child protection investigation. Nor was he happy when a new senior social worker chaired a meeting in February 2022 and said this was not a case of child neglect. This senior social worker only stood in until the new manager started but had full knowledge of the case according to the Council. The minutes for this meeting were, the Council accepted, limited, and recorded the case should be ‘stepped down’.
25. The next CIN meeting was in April. While Mr Y did not attend, to allow Mrs Z the chance to express her views more, she failed to attend. The social worker advised him the Council was considering closing the case. Shortly after, both parents went to the school and agreed a reintegration plan.
26. The Council would normally aim to have a CIN intervention lasting about 3-4 months. Longer intervention would raise the expectation of the team manager discussing the next steps and where the case was going. It said it was clear the threshold of significant harm needed to trigger child protection proceedings had not been met.
27. The independent investigator wrote a report (the Report) for the second stage of the complaints procedure when Mr Y complained. This noted:

• The NSPCC states not ensuring a child receives an education is a type of neglect; and
• The Department of Education said, ‘persistent failure to send children to school is a clear sign of neglect’.

28. Government guidance (‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’) describes neglect as, ‘The persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development’.

My findings

29. It is not our role to decide whether or not there was neglect. Our role involves looking at whether the Council properly considered this issue.
30. On balance, I am not satisfied there was evidence of fault on this complaint. This was because the evidence showed the Council considered the issue of neglect and decided the threshold for escalating the case to child protection proceedings was not met. We cannot challenge the merits of a properly taken decision.
31. This was a difficult case involving parental differences, a child suffering from anxiety, allegations of bullying at school, and some limited instances of getting him back to school.

Complaint b): failing to respond to correspondence or send minutes

32. Mr Y complained the Council delayed sending him copy minutes of CIN meetings. He gave the example of one held in February 2022 when the minutes were not sent to him until April.
33. The Council aimed to share minutes within 15 working days. The Report concluded Mr Y had not received minutes following CIN meetings in line with Council procedures and Practice Standards.
34. In addition, the Council accepted Mr Y’s comments were not always added to the next set of minutes or discussed at the start of the meeting. This meant Mr Y’s views were not always recorded as required in the CIN minutes to help the reviewing and effectiveness of the CIN plan. This in turn caused a lack of planning, drift, and delay.
35. Mr Y also complained he was not kept properly updated. During the complaints process, the independent investigator spoke to a social worker who explained CIN meetings were held more regularly than required because of Mr Y’s request for more regular meetings.
36. The Council accepted Mr Y was not given the chance to contribute his up-to-date views within the single assessment process in 2023. An officer spoke to him to record his views and his written feedback on the assessment was added to the electronic file.

My findings

37. I found the following on this complaint:
1. The minutes following the February 2022 meeting were not sent out until about eight weeks later. This was beyond the Council’s own timescale and amounts to fault.
2. There were delays sending Mr Y minutes of the CIN meetings and as the Council accepted, this meant any comments he wished to make were not always added to those for the next meeting. This would impact on the overall process in terms of efficiency and delays.
3. I am satisfied there was fault on this complaint which caused Mr Y some injustice. This was in the form of distress. He had the frustration of repeatedly asking for minutes, having his expectations raised they would be sent, and then delayed. In addition, he had the uncertainty of not knowing whether his views were properly recorded and considered.
4. While Mr Y did not have the chance to contribute his up-to-date views within the single assessment process, I am satisfied his views were obtained and recorded on the file shortly after.
5. On balance, I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council responded to his correspondence.

Complaint c): act on recommendations made at the Stage 3 complaints panel meeting

38. Mr Y complained the Council failed to act on recommendations made by the review panel at Stage 3 of the complaints process.
39. Under the statutory complaints procedure, the process is:

• Stage 1: local resolution;
• Stage 2: an investigation with an independent person overseeing it; and
• Stage 3: a review panel with an independent chair.

40. When Mr Y took his complaint to Stage 3, the review panel’s role was to consider the adequacy of the stage 2 investigation and focus on getting a resolution of the complaint. While doing so, it also looked at the recommendations made in the Report and what, if anything, had been actioned.
41. The panel went through each of the Stage 2 recommendations and found:

• The written apology for findings that were upheld or partially upheld had been agreed and actioned.
• The comments by Mr Y about CIN reviews to be discussed at the next CIN review to be documented and reviewed. This had not been actioned but had been overtaken by the review panel meeting.
• Checking Mr Y had all copies of CIN minutes and future minutes be sent to him within 10 working days was not actioned. In addition, it noted minutes from January were not sent out until June. He was still waiting to get minutes from the June meeting.
• The discussion of the outcome and recommendations of the Child and Family Assessment were discussed with the Head of Service to ensure senior management oversight was done and recorded.
• Regular supervision sessions at least every six weeks to monitor the CIN plan and intervention was actioned.
• The professional meeting to consider what education services could do if it assessed them as not doing all they could to get him back at school was actioned.
• Regular updates from the school and education services about alternative provision options was not actioned and the school needed to be contacted.
• Discussions with the parents about actions Mr Y could take to ensure his son got some form of education should have been raised with Education Services, not Children’s Services, who need to talk to the school.
• The reminder to all managers responding to complaints about the importance of speaking to relevant people and keeping within timescales to prevent delay, help early resolution, and prevent their escalation, was actioned.
• The recommendation that training for managers should be offered about dealing with complaints and further support was actioned.

42. The panel then went on to make 9 of its own recommendations. The Council provided a copy of its Complaint Action Plan. This showed all 9 recommendations were actioned although some were slightly over the timescales given.

My findings

43. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because the Council provided evidence of the panel’s recommendations being actioned.

Complaint d): ensure his son received an education for almost four years

44. The independent investigator spoke to a member of staff at the school who said: the intervention with the family was inconsistent; there were changes in social workers; at one point there was a gap where there was no support staff in place at all; she felt CIN meetings were going in circles with issues rediscussed which was frustrating.
45. The Council issued a penalty notice against both parents.
46. The Report noted the parents were unable to work together around agreed actions and changes needed. The Report also noted some limited progress following the penalty notice. His son had started to go into the school. The Report noted a revised assessment should have been issued sooner.
47. The Council accepted there had been a lack of progress and said there was a difference of opinion at times between professionals and parents. There was focus on the parents receiving support to identify barriers preventing him from going to school.
48. This acceptance was supported by the Report which noted the Head of Service Child Protection/Child in Need Team had said the plans had stagnated and there was a discussion about how best to support the family as intervention from professionals was not making a difference for his son. The Head of Service recommended the plan needed to be smarter and reviewed.
49. The Report also noted the Council’s Practice Standards stated most children will be supported by a CIN plan for no longer than 9 months to ensure a timely and proportionate intervention. The Report noted there was a failure to record a case summary update every three months which must include a summary of progress against the plan and a summary of the impact of direct work with the child. Nor was there evidence of the service manager reviewing the CIN plan after 26 weeks and reporting this to the Head of Service. Nor was there evidence of the assessments being updated every 12 months, or when progress was seen to not have been made.
50. The Report noted more challenge and consideration about what support was needed and who was best placed to offer this support was needed. It found Practice Standards were not followed for assessments, planning, management oversight and supervision which might have led to change and focused outcomes. There was a lack of focus in the CIN plans about considering effectiveness. There was lack of progress and supervision could have been more regular. In addition, an updated assessment should have been completed and a manager should have reviewed the processes and CIN plan. These actions might have prevented drift and delay.
51. A CIN meeting in June 2023 noted his son had been at school full time, attended lessons, and completed his Year exams.
52. The Report noted his son went to school for a few hours over the lead up to Christmas 2021, but this broke down again in the New Year. There was a request for him to go to another school, but this was not possible because of his poor attendance record. The other school did not have an appropriate class for him nor the space which meant he would go into a lower academic group which would not benefit him.

My Findings

53. I found fault on this complaint and in reaching this view, took the following into account:
1. This was a difficult and complex situation. Mr Y and his former wife had different views from Council officers about what should be done. At one point, the Council issued a penalty notice against both parents, following which there appeared to be a brief improvement.
2. Progress in getting his son back to school was slow and limited. The Report noted certain parts of planning and overall effectiveness could have been better and a revised assessment should have been completed sooner in line with Practice Standards and procedures. There was also a failing in management oversight of the case due to personnel changes and case recording. There was some drift and delay on the case.
3. The Council accepted there had been a lack of progress and the situation had stagnated with the need to review the plan which needed to be smarter.
4. On balance, I am satisfied these failures caused Mr Y an injustice. This was because he had the uncertainty of not knowing whether his son would have been reintegrated back into school sooner than he did but for the fault found. Mr Y has the uncertainty of not knowing whether there would have been a different outcome but for the fault. He had the frustration of knowing his son was not getting education at school. I am unable to say the injustice includes lost provision. This is because it was speculative to say his son would have reintegrated to education sooner but for the fault.
5. I am satisfied his son also suffered an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also considered the recommendations made by the Stage 3 review panel which have now been actioned, as well as the actions taken at Stage 2 of the complaints process. For example, these included: sending an apology; discussing the outcomes with the Head of Service to ensure senior management oversight is done and recorded on case files; regular supervision meetings at least every 6 weeks; a meeting with the Education Service to consider actions it could take; action to provide regular updates.
55. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks:
1. Pay £250 to Mr Y for the injustice caused by the identified failings.
2. Pay £350 to his son for the injustice caused by the identified failings.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I found fault on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman