Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s involvement with his family following a referral it received regarding his young child. There is fault because the Council did not speak with Mr Y about the referral and then created a safety plan which was one-sided and contained assumptions about Mr Y’s ability to parent. This caused avoidable and significant distress which the Council has already remedied with an apology, a symbolic payment of £1350 and reminders to relevant staff. This is an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr Y’s representative complains about the Council’s actions in its children’s services involvement with Mr Y’s family. In particular, he says the Council:
• was biased against him and made decisions based on false information. Mr Y complains the safety plan was one-sided and included conditions to benefit his ex-partner and her family. The Council also made reference to addictions which Mr Y says he does not have.
• was manipulated into having Mr Y arrested in front of his young child.
• breached his personal data by disclosing his location to his ex-partner.
• breached his right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence as per Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

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 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr Y raises concerns about the necessity of his arrest in August 2024. He says the arrest was based on false information about a restraining order. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate this part of the complaint and Mr Y would instead need to make this complaint to the relevant police force.
6. Mr Y also raises concerns about the social worker notifying his ex-partner of his location on a date in September 2024. He says this is a breach of GDPR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has broad powers to investigate complaints about access to information. We normally consider it reasonable for a person to refer those complaints to the ICO. From the information provided by Mr Y’s representative, it is evident he has already made a complaint to the ICO about this matter and so we will not investigate it

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y’s representative and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr Y’s representative and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Safety planning for Children in Need

9. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so. 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.

10. If the information gathered supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the Council might consider making the child a ‘child in need’ (CIN) under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and implementing a safety plan.
11. Safety planning is used to manage risks and keep a child safe while they remain at home. It usually applies to children who need extra support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. A safety plan outlines the concerns, sets out steps to reduce harm, and involves the family and professionals. Any contact arrangements set out in a safety plan are voluntary but should be taken seriously by parents.
12. As safety plans can affect family life, the Council should give due regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, to ensure that any interference must be necessary, proportionate, and in the child’s best interests.
13. The Council’s ‘Guidance on Placing Restrictions on the Living/Contact Arrangements of Parents with their Children’ says:

“Safety plans must be co-created with parents, the extended family, the community network and, of course, with other agencies”.

“Professional curiosity needs to be exercised constantly in these complex situations. For example, explanations given by parents must be queried and challenged when they appear to lack credibility”.

Human Rights

14. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to respect for private and family life. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
15. Not all rights operate in the same way. Instead, they break down into three separate categories:

• Absolute rights: those which cannot be interfered with under any circumstances.
• Limited rights: those that can be interfered with in certain circumstances; and
• Qualified rights: those rights where interference may be justified in order to protect the rights of others or wider public interest. Note that any interference with a qualified right must be in accordance with the law; in pursuit of a legitimate aim; no more than necessary to achieve the intended objective; and must not be arbitrary or unfair.

16. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can decide whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

Summary of key background events relevant to the complaint

17. This section of the decision statement refers to the key events regarding Mr Y’s complaint. It is not intended to be a complete chronology of every action taken. Key dates have been excluded to protect Mr Y’s anonymity.
18. Mr Y has a young child who I will call Z. Mr Y has joint parental responsibility with Z’s mother. Mr Y and Z’s mother are no longer together and live separately. I will refer to her as Miss X.
19. Mr Y reports that, until the matters complained about, he had regular and consistent contact with Z. The contact arrangements were agreed between Z’s parents and not ordered by the courts. Z was not subject to any social care involvement.
20. Despite the arrangements working well, Mr Y says Miss X changed the agreement in mid-2024 and insisted that Mr Y returned Z directly to her home, rather than via a third party (Mr Y’s father).
21. The Council says there is a contact record around this time referring to a police incident which described Mr Y as appearing “in drink”.
22. On a date in Summer 2024, Mr Y returned Z to Miss X’s house. She called the police to report criminal damage and harassment, which Mr Y denies.
23. Mr Y says he had no contact with Miss X for around ten days. He went to collect Z from their education setting, which he says was planned and part of their normal routine. Mr Y says the setting locked him inside the premises while staff called the police as a result of Miss X telling them that she had a restraining order. The police arrested Mr Y. The Council has since confirmed there was no active restraining order in place at the time.
24. The police force made a referral to the Council. Children’s Services picked up the case, allocated a social worker and contacted Miss X to arrange an initial visit. After the visit, Miss X emailed a family member of Mr Y’s to say that a plan is being developed and that her relatives will need to check that Mr Y is sober before he has any contact with Z.
25. Miss X gave Mr Y’s home address to the social worker.
26. The social worker drew up a ‘safety plan’ to protect Z from “emotional harm” caused by witnessing “frightening behaviour”. The plan also said that Miss X’s family members will ensure that Mr Y is not presenting as under the influence of alcohol or drugs before having contact with Z.
27. The day after the social worker drew up the safety plan, they contacted a family member representing Mr Y. The family member said that all contact must go through them and that Mr Y does not have a mobile phone.
28. The Council shared the safety plan with Mr Y two days after creating it.
29. The following day, the social worker visited the address provided by Miss X. The social worker reports that Mr Y did not answer the door, so they hand delivered a letter asking Mr Y to make contact. Mr Y later emailed the social worker to confirm he was willing to participate in an assessment, provided it was focussed on Z’s care arrangements.
30. Mr Y’s representative complained to the Council about the contents of the safety plan and apparent bias towards Mr Y.
31. A few days later, Miss X contacted the social worker to withdraw her consent for the assessment to progress. Miss X said her intention was to agree contact arrangements for Z through the courts. The Council closed its case.
32. The Council received notification of court proceedings around six weeks later and allocated a different social worker to write the report required for the proceedings.
33. In the meantime, the Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint. It upheld some elements of the complaint and proposed a remedy. Dissatisfied, Mr Y approached the Ombudsman via his representative.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y?

34. In our view, and based on the information seen, we find fault with the Council for the following reasons.
• In response to Mr Y’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that the social worker waited 12 working days after receipt of the referral and before making direct contact with Mr Y. In the meantime, the Council contacted Miss X and completed a safety plan based on allegations made about Mr Y. The Council did not seek to verify those allegations or at least seek Mr Y’s response to the comments made about his sobriety. The Council’s own procedures say that it involves both parents – and wider family members – when completing safety plans. In this case, the Council drew up the plan before speaking with Mr Y and therefore did not follow its own procedures and acted in a way which appeared one-sided.
• The Council accepts it acted disproportionately when agreeing that Miss X’s family would need to assess Mr Y’s sobriety. The Council also acknowledges it was wrong to accept Miss X’s assertion that there was an active restraining order in place. This is linked to the fault found in the point above because – had the Council involved Mr Y with the safety planning – it could have made its own assessment about Mr Y’s suitability rather than relying on the viewpoints of Miss X. The complaint response at stage two said the Council had: “excluded [Mr Y] for a period that was neither proportionate nor justifiable”.
• Although defamation claims can only be considered by the High Court, the LGSCO can consider the actions of the Council and arrive at a view on the extent to which it had or had not damaged someone’s reputation. The unverified comments about Mr Y’s alleged alcohol and drug dependency would likely have affected his reputation amongst those who had access to the safety plan. This caused unnecessary and avoidable distress.
• Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects the right to private and family life, but it is a qualified right. This means the Council can interfere with it, but only when there is good reason, such as protecting a child. Councils must ensure that actions, such as setting rules about contact or living arrangements, are necessary, fair, and not go further than needed. Families should be involved in safety planning and clearly understand what’s happening. This is because the law requires a careful balance between the child’s safety and the family’s rights. By excluding Mr Y from the safety planning process, the Council failed to have due regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
35. The LGSCO’s Remedies Guidance says we should recommend a symbolic payment in recognition of avoidable distress caused directly by fault. The guidance says: “Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. We can recommend higher payments to remedy distress where we decide it was especially severe and/or prolonged and/or taking account of personal vulnerability of those affected. Where we do so we will explain our reasons in our decision statement”
36. The Council has already apologised to Mr Y and offered a remedy payment of £1350 in recognition of the distress caused by the fault. In my view, this is an appropriate amount, and I do not recommend more.
37. I have also considered whether to recommend service improvements in this case. In its final complaint response, a senior manager confirmed:

“I have spoken directly with the relevant Group Manager about your complaint and the learning themes. They will in turn speak to the individuals and teams to ensure that everyone understands the expectation that families (residing, non-residing parents and extended family network) will be contacted in a timely manner, be equally involved where safe to do so when informing why there is need for social work involvement and commencement of any assessment”

38. Based on this, I am satisfied the Council has already taken proportionate remedial action to remind staff of their responsibilities to ensure service improvements in the relevant teams.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has provided a proportionate remedy which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance and for this reason we do not recommend any further remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman