Summary: Mrs B complained about the process leading to, and content of, a section 17 family assessment in respect of her son, C. We have found fault because the Council did not arrange a proper assessment visit with Mrs B or allow her the opportunity to comment on negative conclusions reached about her as part of the assessment. We welcome the Council’s offer to meet with Mrs B now and consider if any further changes to the assessment are possible. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300 and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that East Sussex County Council (the Council), in respect of the section 17 assessment report regarding her son, C, done in August 2023:
• failed to arrange a proper assessment visit with Mrs B and C;
• spoke to C when he had taken drugs; and
• included inaccurate facts and defamatory information about Mrs B in the report, which it failed to substantiate or correct.
2. This caused Mrs B significant distress and concern that an inaccurate report is now available for other agencies to see.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
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

What I found

Section 17 duties

8. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
9. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

10. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days.

What happened

11. At the end of June 2023 Mrs B’s son, C was admitted to hospital following a drug overdose. He was discharged several days later to Mrs B’s house and the multi-agency assessment hub agreed a family assessment was required.
12. A worker from the substance misuse service visited Mrs B and C on 7 July 2023, with a duty social worker (SW). The purpose of the meeting stated in the case notes was to provide a response and guidance following the hospital admission. Both workers spoke to Mrs B and C separately and said the case would be allocated to a social worker to carry out a family assessment and to a substance misuse worker to carry out a drug treatment monitoring assessment.
13. On Monday 10 July 2023 the allocated substance misuse worker (SMW) spoke to Mrs B for 45 minutes to discuss C and arrange a home visit. Mrs B spoke to SMW the next day and the visit was confirmed. SMW carried out the assessment visit on 13 July 2023 and spoke to both Mrs B and C. SMW recorded concerns about Mrs B’s ‘presentation’, using medical explanations for C’s behaviour rather than a holistic bio-psycho-social approach, conflict between the parents and other children in the house having access to substances. They visited Mrs B again on 14 July for an overdose prevention session. SMW spoke to C’s father on two occasions.
14. SMW and SW liaised on 17 July 2023 about the case, although the case remained unallocated for the family assessment when they spoke. The case was allocated to SW later that day.
15. SMW visited Mrs B and C at home on 18 July 2023 to continue the drug monitoring assessment. She spoke to them both separately and arranged a further visit for the following week. She recorded a conversation with C where he said Mrs B and her partner drunk two bottles of wine a night and that his father drunk alcohol, but no amount was specified. SMW also recorded concerns about C continuing to use substances and family dynamics including Mrs B’s view of the services involved. SMW also met with C and his father at his father’s house. SW also visited C’s father at home as part of the assessment. The notes are very brief and there is no analysis of the information detailing any concerns or positives.
16. On 2 August 2023 SW had a supervision with her manager. SW said she had met both parents. Negative comments about Mrs B are recorded in the notes, based on information recorded by SMW during her interactions with Mrs B and C, including the statement that Mrs B drank a bottle of wine a day. The notes also say that there were other children in the home, but Mrs B did not consent to opening family assessments into them.
17. SMW visited Mrs B and C again on 8 August 2023. Mrs B reported that NHS England had been told about a concern relating to C and were considering suspending her from her job. She requested all communication to be in writing. SW had an email exchange with Mrs B on 16 August 2023 to say she was writing up the assessment and would be closing the case.
18. SW completed the family assessment on 21 August 2023 and sent a copy to Mrs B. The assessment concluded that the case should be closed to that team as C was supported by his parents, SMW and a counsellor. The same day Mrs B sent the Council a list of corrections to the assessment and asked for a meeting. The Council responded that a meeting was not possible due to a lack of staff time, but Mrs B could submit her concerns in writing for a review.
19. Instead, at the end of September 2023 Mrs B she made a formal complaint about the assessment. She said the assessment should be declared void. She also requested a meeting with SW and said SW should be retrained.
20. The Council replied on 14 November 2023. It responded to each point in her list of corrections. It made some changes, adding in Mrs B’s view where appropriate. Where it did not make changes, it explained why. For example, some of the information had been taken from historic records for another service and could not be changed. It also explained that it was not possible to make changes based on a difference of opinion with SW’s professional view. It partly upheld her complaint as it had changed aspects of the assessment.
21. Mrs B did not receive this letter until early January 2024. She pursued her complaint saying the assessment should be withdrawn: her son was interviewed when he had taken drugs and an assessment meeting was promised but never arranged. She sent further details of her complaint at the end of February 2024.
22. The Council responded in April 2024 saying that the outcome would not have been different for C even if he had been interviewed again when he had not taken drugs; the Council was intervening because of his misuse of substances and he was receiving ongoing support for this. The Council said that it had not proceeded to a full section 17 assessment because Mrs B had not consented for information from the health service or C’s psychologist to be shared as she did not agree with the analyses presented. It said it had already made changes to the assessment and would place her complaint along with the Council’s responses on file so it would be seen by any professional who accesses the information in the future.
23. Mrs B complained to us. In response to my enquiries the Council said on reflection it should have met with Mrs B to discuss her concerns and has offered for a manager to do so now.

Analysis

24. My role is to look at the way in which the Council carried out the assessment process, not to comment on the conclusions reached.
25. SW only visited Mrs B as part of a joint visit with a substance misuse worker very soon after C had been discharged from hospital when the situation was very new and stressful. The case had not been allocated to SW to do an assessment at this point. SW’s notes are brief and do not cover all the issues required by the assessment. She did not speak to Mrs B again but had some email communication.
26. In contrast she visited C’s father at his home once the case had been allocated to her, clearly stating it was going to form part of the assessment. I consider SW should have arranged a similar visit to Mrs B as part of the assessment. The failure to do so was fault.
27. I note that the assessment contains some negative views of Mrs B, including the amount her son alleged she drinks, a lack of acceptance of professional’s views she did not agree with, a refusal to consent to sharing therapy and psychology reports about C or for the younger children to be included in the assessment and access to substances within Mrs B’s house, currently and in the past. I can see from the case notes that some of these conclusions were based on notes made by SMW for her drug monitoring assessment and information recorded by professionals in the past, rather than on interactions between Mrs B and SW.
28. While it is understandable that SW gathered information from all sources to reach a rounded view, I consider that where such negative conclusions are reached by SW (and not based on her own interactions with Mrs B or C), that she should have given Mrs B the right to respond to them in person. As she did not arrange an assessment visit with Mrs B, only with C’s father, I do not consider Mrs B was given an adequate opportunity to contribute to the assessment and give her side of the story. This was fault which means Mrs B did not have the chance to know about, or comment on, potentially damaging information about her.
29. I consider SW should have arranged a visit to Mrs B once the case had been allocated to her, to give Mrs B a chance to discuss all the concerns that had arisen from all sources and to give her the opportunity to dispute potentially inaccurate information about her drinking habits and storage of substances. This was particularly important given the potential impact on Mrs B’s job. Mrs B did not learn about these conclusions until she received the assessment which was a shock to her.
30. I acknowledge that after Mrs B complained, the Council considered Mrs B’s request to change aspects of the assessment. It did make some changes, added Mrs B’s view where appropriate and explained its reasons when it declined to make changes. It has also added Mrs B’s complaints and the Council responses to the file so any person reading the assessment in the future can see all the viewpoints. This is the action we usually recommend where there are unresolved disagreements about the content of assessments.

Back to top

Action

31. I welcomed the Council’s offer to meet with Mrs B now to discuss her concerns further and hope that the Council will consider whether it can make any further changes to the assessment.
32. So, I recommended that the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• arranges a meeting with Mrs B to discuss her continuing concerns about the assessment and considers if any further changes are possible;
• apologises to Mrs B and makes a symbolic payment to her of £300 for the distress she has been caused; and
• reminds staff of the need to arrange a formal visit with all parties when carrying out a section 17 family assessment to ensure all views are properly considered and all parties are given a chance to comment on concerns raised about them.
33. Additionally I would also ask the Council to place a copy of this decision on the case file.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman