Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Birmingham Childrens Trust’s decision to carry out Section 47 enquiries following two strategy discussions. We are unlikely to achieve a different outcome for her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains says following the childrens statutory complaints procedure, Birmingham Childrens Trust (BCT - on behalf of Birmingham City Council) has not recognised its Section 47 enquiry into the family should not have happened. It had not met the threshold following a strategy discussion. Mrs X is unhappy with BCT’s apology, which does not take ownership of its fault. Also, she says its financial remedy of £1,600 is insulting. Mrs X says this caused her family significant anxiety and distress. She would like BCT to accept what it got wrong, provide a meaningful apology and pay £5,000 to reflect the impact on the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was a foster carer for Y, who was a baby. During a health assessment at an NHS Trust, Mrs X highlighted a small bruise on Y and could not explain how that happened. The doctor told Mrs X they had to carry out a child protection medical and speak to BCT about the bruise. BCT then carried two strategy discussions. After the second strategy discussion, BCT decided to carry out a Section 47 enquiry.
7. Among other issues, Mrs X complained to BCT about the decision to make a Section 47 enquiry.
8. The Children Act 1989 sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. We call this the “children’s statutory complaints procedure”. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure.
9. BCT considered Mrs X complaints under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Its Stage 1 response did not respond to her complaint about the Section 47 enquiry.
10. The Stage 2 investigation found BCT did not document why a Section 47 enquiry was necessary. The Independent Person upheld that part of Mrs X’s complaint. They recommended BCT explain why it carried out the Section 47 enquiry despite both strategy discussions deciding the children were safe and not at risk of harm. At Stage 2, BCT agreed with the Independent Person’s findings, and said: “I am sincerely sorry the Trust has not appropriately applied its thresholds in the Strategy Discussions…”. BCT agreed to explain why it carried out the Section 47 enquiries.
11. During Stage 3, the Review Panel recommended BCT further explain why it did not carry out a review strategy meeting or family assessment instead of a Section 47 enquiry. In response, BCT told Mrs X that any bruising to a non-mobile baby would meet the threshold of ‘reasonable cause to suspect significant harm’. That was why BCT carried out Section 47 enquiries.
12. I understand Mrs X’s view that BCT has was wrong to make Section 47 enquiries.
13. However, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
14. I have reviewed both the Stage 2 and 3 responses. I do not consider there is evidence BCT’s investigation was flawed. It accepted it acted with fault during the strategy discussions and has appropriately remedied the injustice to Mrs X. I accept she disagrees with the BCT’s reason for carrying out the Section 47 enquiry. But I do not consider an investigation would lead to a different finding.
15. I am also unlikely to find fault with BCT’s approach to its financial remedy. While I understand Mrs X disagrees with the offer, BCT has appropriately considered the LGSCO’s Guidance on Remedies when deciding what financial remedy is fair. I consider an investigation is unlikely to achieve more for her.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about BCT because an investigation would not lead to any different findings our outcomes.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman