West Sussex County Council (24 003 204)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council investigated his complaint about children’s services. We have found fault with stage two investigation and the time taken to complete the process. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £600.
The complaint
- Mr B complained about the actions of West Sussex County Council regarding the the statutory complaints process into his complaint about an inaccurate assessment produced as part of a child protection investigation in 2023. He says the Council:
- failed to involve him in the process or offer a face-to-face meeting;
- included inaccurate and damaging information about previous police involvement;
- took too long to correct the assessment;
- failed to identify how the inaccurate information was included in the original assessment; and
- has offered an insufficient financial remedy.
- This has caused Mr B significant distress and frustration to the extent that he was unable to work for some time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
- The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
- However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
- Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I found
Child protection
- Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
- Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
- 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.
The statutory children’s complaint process
- 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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
- The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
- 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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
- Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
- The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
- 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
What happened
Assessment 1
- In late 2022 Mr B’s ex-partner (Ms D) raised concerns about Mr B’s behaviour when he was looking after their daughter (E). The Council agreed to carry out a Child and Family assessment. A social worker (SW) visited Ms D and E, who did not wish to have contact with Mr B at that time. SW also spoke to Mr B by telephone to gather his views on the concerns. SW produced a safety plan for Mr B in respect of E which he agreed to.
- Over Christmas tensions arose between Mr B, Ms D and E over contact. In early January 2023 SW offered to meet with Mr B to gain his views for the assessment, which he agreed to. On the morning of the visit Mr B said the meeting did not need to go ahead as E did not wish to see him. SW acknowledged the request and said she would use his views gained during the telephone conversation in December. She understood he did not wish to engage any further at that time.
- The Council completed the assessment and closed the case because the risk to E was removed as she was not seeing Mr B. Mr B was happy with the assessment process and thanked SW.
Assessment 2
- In late January 2023 the police received allegations about Mr B’s behaviour towards E when he lived in the household many years previously and referred the matter to the Council. The Council held a strategy meeting and proposed carrying out another assessment given the allegations.
- A different social worker was assigned to the case (SW2). They visited Ms D and E. Ms E declined another assessment given one had been done very recently. Following an email to SW about the first assessment Mr B learned about the new allegations. SW2 spoke to Mr B by telephone to discuss these allegations. He strongly disputed them. Mr B sent a further email giving his views, said he was seeking legal advice and was off work due to stress and anxiety. He also said he would not contact E for two years and asked to be informed when the assessment was completed. SW2 gave Mr B a further update several days later saying he was gathering information.
- The Council concluded the assessment on 9 February 2023 and closed the case shortly afterwards. Mr B requested a copy of the assessment on 13 February 2023 and SW2 sent a redacted copy of the first assessment. Mr B asked later that day for corrections to be made but he said he did not receive a response. SW2 told Mr B on 20 February 2023 that the second assessment had been closed and no further action would be taken. Mr B sent five email requests in late February/early March 2023 to SW2 asking for an update but did not receive a response.
Formal complaint – stage one
- Mr B then made a subject access request in early March 2023 and a formal complaint about the assessment process on 28 March 2023. He accused SW2 of leading E to make the second set of allegations, said the assessment process took too long and that he had not yet received a copy of the second assessment.
- The Council replied at stage one of the statutory complaints procedure in April 2024. It said that SW2 had not been involved in the case when E disclosed the allegations to the police so they could not have influenced what E said. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
- It said the assessment had been completed within the 20 working day deadline, so it did not uphold this part. It apologised for the delay in sending out the second assessment but said this was due to the need for redaction and did not uphold the complaint.
- Mr B received the second assessment report completed by SW2 in late April 2023. It contained more details of the allegations of which Mr B was unaware and which he said were false. He said there had never been any police involvement with him or the family. Mr B also denied refusing a face-to-face meeting. He said the Council had not properly responded to his complaint.
- The Council offered Mr B a meeting to discuss his concerns. This took place on 25 May 2023. Mr B confirmed he had no complaints about the first assessment process. His concerns related to the second assessment. He had been shocked to hear of the allegations which he said were untrue and felt he had not been able to share his views as part of the assessment process. He had brought with him an annotated copy of the first assessment with his comments. The Council agreed to include these and said it would include any comments he provided on the second assessment as well. The Council also agreed to speak to the police about the part of the allegation Mr B said was wrong including the suggestion that the police had been involved with the family.
- After the meeting the Council liaised with the police and discovered that the information about the allegations had been wrongly transcribed in the minutes of the strategy meeting and SW2 had copied them into the second assessment. The Council corrected the assessment and the strategy minutes and included Mr B’s views in the assessment document. It emailed Mr B on 5 June 2023 to explain the mistake, the action taken to rectify it and the instruction to staff to carefully check minutes of meetings in future to ensure they are factually correct.
- On 26 June 2023 Mr B said he had not yet seen a copy of the revised report so was unable to say if he wished to continue with his stage two complaint. He did say he was happy with the way the Council eventually responded to his concerns, but he was still unhappy with the way SW2 had dealt with him including his poor communication and failure to include his views in the assessment.
Stage two
- The Council proceeded with a stage two investigation, appointing an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) on 18 August 2023. Mr B met with them on 8 September 2023 and the statement of complaint was agreed several days later, covering three complaints. One about the subject access request process, one about the second assessment process and a third about the delay in sending Ms D a copy of the updated assessment. The delay in doing this had caused Mr B distress as Ms D did not know his views on the content of the assessment or that some of it was wrong.
- The IO sent their report to the Council on 25 September 2023. They upheld the complaint about the subject access request. They partially upheld the complaint about the assessment process, agreeing that the assessment had been carried out without Mr B’s full involvement. They accepted that Mr B’s views had not been properly included and the case was not conducted properly. In respect of delays, they agreed that Mr B could have been told sooner that the child protection investigation had ceased but there were no delays in completing the assessments which were thorough and detailed. They did not uphold the final complaint because Ms D had now received a copy of the assessment. The report recommended a payment of £200 for the delays in the subject access process and in telling Mr B that the child protection process had ended.
- The Council’s undated adjudication letter agreed with the findings but did not consider a payment was appropriate as the apologies given were sufficient. The Council referred to our Guidance on Remedies to support its view.
Stage three
- In December 2023 Mr B escalated the complaint to stage three. He said the IO had incorrectly said he had declined to be involved in the process, to account for why his views had not been included, when the reality was that SW2 had not offered to meet with him. He said the first assessment report was issued without including his views and presented allegations as fact. There was a delay in issuing the corrected assessment report to Ms D and a lack of contact from SW2.
- The Panel met on 13 February 2024 and reconsidered the second complaint about the assessment process. It changed the finding to fully upheld. It found the IO had not been clear about which assessment they were referring to in the investigation report. The IO also apologised at the hearing for not investigating the matters Mr B had raised, agreeing that they had focussed on the process alone and not the inaccuracies in the second assessment. The Panel questioned the IO on where she had obtained the evidence that Mr B had declined a face-to-face meeting with SW2. The IO said they could not recall and no longer had their notes. Mr B strongly denied refusing a meeting. The Panel concluded Mr B’s concerns had not been properly investigated. It criticised the brevity of the report and the lack of detail regarding the evidence on which the conclusions were based. In respect of complaint three, Mr B said Ms D had now received a copy of the updated assessment.
- The Panel recommended a payment of £500 in line with our guidance.
- The Council responded to the Panel’s report on 9 May 2024. It agreed with the decision to fully uphold the second complaint. It did not agree that a payment was warranted and noted that neither the Panel nor the IO had identified which parts of the complaint warranted a financial remedy and which parts of our guidance were relevant. It considered the apologies provided at all stages were proportionate and appropriate. It did however offer £200 for the delay in providing the response to the Panel’s findings and the resulting time and trouble to Mr B.
- Mr B complained to us.
Analysis
Fault in stage two investigation
- I agree with the stage three conclusion that there was fault in the way the stage two investigation was carried out. The IO and IP should have identified that Mr B was only complaining about the second assessment and that his complaint was about inaccurate information included in that assessment and the failure to properly include his views. The IO should also have included details of the evidence relied on to reach their conclusions which may have highlighted the fact that SW2 did not offer Mr B a face-to-face meeting and that Mr B did not decline to meet. Those events had occurred with SW as part of the first assessment and did not form part of Mr B’s complaint.
- The stage three Panel found that the second assessment did contain inaccurate information, and that SW2 had not properly included Mr B’s views, offered a meeting with him or properly communicated with him about the progress of the assessment.
- I consider the inaccuracies in the assessment were corrected without delay in late May/early June and prior to the stage two or stage three investigations, following the meeting with Mr B and the liaison with the police. I also consider Mr B was given a detailed explanation of how the inaccurate information was included and the action the Council had taken to ensure the mistake did not happen again. However, because of the flaws in the stage two investigation Mr B felt compelled to proceed to the stage three Panel to ensure the errors were acknowledged and corrected. This was fault which caused him injustice.
Delay in complaints process
- Mr B first complained on 28 March 2023. The stage one response was sent within the 20 day time frame on 21 April 2023. The Council then took approximately five weeks to meet with Mr B and take action to correct the assessment. Mr B confirmed he wished to proceed to stage two on 26 June 2023.
- The stage two was completed at in early December and Mr B immediately escalated to stage three. This was not completed until 9 May 2024.
- The whole process should have been completed in 27 weeks (approximately six months) but it took 13 months. This was a significant delay which caused Mr B time and trouble and frustration.
Financial remedy
- The Council and the IO have already apologised to Mr B and taken steps to improve their procedures regarding proof-reading reports. The only outstanding issue is the question of a financial remedy. The stage two report recommended £200 for the delays in the subject access request which the Council did not agree to. The stage three Panel recommended £500 for the failings identified in relation to the subject access request, along with the inaccuracies in the second assessment and the inadequate investigation. But the Council rejected this entirely, offering only £200 for the delay in responding to the stage three Panel.
- I do not consider the Council’s offer is adequate or reflective of our Guidance on Remedies. But neither do I think the recommendations of the stage two investigation or the stage three Panel are appropriate or in line with our guidance. I will set out my view in the recommendations below.
Agreed action
- In recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to Mr B by the fault in the stage two investigation and the delays in the complaints process, I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision;
- increases the payment of £200 for the impact of the complaint delay to £300; and
- pays Mr B a further £300 for the distress caused by the flawed investigation, the inaccurate information in the assessment and the failure to include his views in the process.
- The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
- I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman