Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions with a referral it received about her child, and it also falsely told her a home visit was mandatory. We are satisfied with the Council’s acknowledgement and apology with some fault it identified, and this is appropriate for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the actions by social services relating to her child, specifically:
1. She refused a home visit and she said the Council delayed respite care because of this. But it falsely told her a visit was mandatory; and
2. Discriminatory language about her religious beliefs was used in a child referral from an agency which the Council did not challenge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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)
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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mrs X provided background of other incidents relating to the third party service who made the referral. This is not part of my consideration for this complaint as I can only consider the actions of the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
7. I considered copies of the complaint correspondence the Council had with Mrs X.
8. 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 administrative background

Duty to safeguard and promote welfare (section 17)

9. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
10. When undertaking an assessment of a child under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils are required to consider whether it is necessary to provide support. This can include practical assistance in the home including home based short breaks or respite care.

Background

11. Mrs X’s child has learning disabilities and autism.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

12. In October 2023, the Council’s Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (“MASH”) received a referral from a third party service about Mrs X’s child (“Y”). The referral said the family needed support with Y and respite. This included reference to the family’s religious beliefs. The third party service said they had respected their views to support Y and “careful allocation is needed for the safety of the [worker]”.
13. A MASH Social Worker reviewed the referral. On the record, they wrote it would contact Mrs X and contact its Children with Disabilities Team.
14. In November 2023, the Council allocated Social Worker 2 to Mrs X’s family. Social Worker 2 requested to carry out a home visit. Mrs X declined.
15. In mid-December 2023, Social Worker 2 completed an assessment. Social Worker 2 observed Y at school and used information from the third party service about Y’s home circumstances.
16. In early March 2024, Mrs X contacted the Council. She complained Social Worker 2 had told her a home visit was mandatory. When Mrs X questioned it, she was told it was in legislation and a statutory requirement. She requested the documentation that said this, as she valued their right to privacy.
17. Social Worker 2’s manager responded to Mrs X. They referred to statutory guidance which informs social work practice (“Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023”). This said assessments should be holistic in approach and address underlying issues, giving sufficient recognition and priority to the specific needs of disabled children and to any risks the child faces within or outside the home. The guidance also stated that the social worker or manager should meet families and attend home visits as needed and where appropriate.
18. Social Worker 2’s manager said in view of this, it would not be able to carry out a full picture of Y’s identified needs if it could not see Y in their home environment with their family. They also understood that Y’s additional needs impacted on their daily life at home and the social worker would need to observe Y at home to ensure support provided is tailored to their needs in all environments.
19. Social Worker 2 had relied on information from the third party service, but they needed to make their own assessment. It was the manager’s view that to continue to offer support to Mrs X and Y, school and home visits were appropriate.
20. In late April 2024, after reviewing Council records from a Subject Access Request, Mrs X complained about the wording of the October 2023 referral made to MASH. She said the referral from the third party service suggested her religious beliefs were a safety risk, which was discriminatory.
21. The Council responded to both of Mrs X’s complaints and partially upheld them at both stages.

My findings and analysis

22. Our investigations are proportionate – we are not required to answer every question or point a complainant may have about a council’s actions.
23. Our role is not to decide what decisions an organisation should have made, or whether it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question the professional merits of the decision it reached.
24. I have outlined some of the Council’s responses to key points of Mrs X’s complaints and set out my views alongside these.

The MASH referral

25. The Council said its records had taken the wording straight from what the referrer wrote. As a result of her complaint, it had now spoken to the third party service who made the referral. It discussed her concerns about the wording used and the third party service addressed this internally.
• I am satisfied the Council’s record of the referral was not a reflection of the Council’s own views. We cannot find the Council at fault for what the referrer wrote or the words the referrer used; it was an accurate record. In my view, the Council is not responsible for any perceived intent of the language used. Instead, I have considered below how the Council acted with the referral.
26. The Council acknowledged the MASH Social Worker should have contacted the third party service to discuss the referral at the time it was made. It said its practice was to normally clarify the intent of the referral. It said it could have discussed the language used to understand what the referrer meant by specific wording and explore the working relationships between the family and professionals. But in this case, it did not happen. It apologised for the oversight.
27. The Council said it had reflected upon this and taken learning from the complaint to the wider team about practice standards. It would ensure reasons for referrals are clear and MASH staff would take steps to understand any language that is unclear.
• I have not seen evidence the Council specifically responded negatively with the reference to Mrs X’s religious beliefs in the referral, and it did take action to allocate a social worker to Mrs X's family to offer support. I do not find the Council at fault for this.
• But I agree there was some procedural fault here which the Council apologised for. It has taken action to improve its practices in the future. This is an appropriate response to remedy the frustration caused to Mrs X by this.

Home visits

28. The Council said as part of assessments, social workers find it helpful to visit children at home to gather information about their home lives. Social Worker 2 considered it was appropriate for Y’s case. The Council found that Social Worker 2’s manager explained to Mrs X the reasons why. But the Council said it was not initially clear that it was their professional view that a visit would be helpful, rather than a mandatory expectation of social care involvement with Y.
29. It acknowledged Social Worker 2 and their manager could have clarified the nature of the assessment to assist Mrs X in understanding how seeing Y in their home environment would be helpful. It said a home visit is not mandatory and is at the discretion of the service. But in the Council’s experience, seeing a child’s day to day experiences in the home environment and those of the parents, are valuable for a full assessment.
• I accept it was poor practice for Social Worker 2 to state a home visit was mandatory.
• However, in response to Mrs X concerns about this, their manager adequately addressed this. They explained the reasoning and basis for why they considered it appropriate to do one in order to tailor support for Y. It had regard to the statutory guidance and also in its view, it wanted to make its own assessment rather than relying on information it had gathered from the third party service.
• I do not find fault with the Council’s decision making process here. This is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to make in order to progress the support it could offer. I therefore cannot question the merits of the decision to say if it was right or wrong.
30. The Council said it would also discuss home visits and assessments with the relevant internal teams. It would ensure they were clear about the wording of statutory guidance so it could be clearly explained to parents in future.
• This is appropriate action to take in response to this part of the complaint.

Summary

31. The Council gave detailed responses to Mrs X’s point of complaints. I am satisfied the Council has sufficiently apologised to Mrs X for the fault it identified, and it has taken steps to prevent future recurrence and provide a better service. On balance, this is proportionate to the injustice caused. Mrs X may not think the Council’s actions are satisfactory or go far enough to address her concerns, however I do not consider any further recommendations are necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I am satisfied with the Council’s actions in response to Mrs X's complaint and I do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman