Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s actions during a series of events involving her disabled daughter. We uphold the complaint finding fault in certain communications the Council sent to Ms B; in a statement it made in an assessment of her daughter’s needs and because of delay in it taking action agreed when Ms B made her complaint. These faults caused Ms B distress and unnecessary frustration, time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, I explain the action it has agreed to remedy Ms B’s injustice.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Ms B’. Her complaint concerns the Council’s actions during a series of events involving her disabled daughter, of primary school age, who I will call “C”. My investigation has considered six issues:

• First, how the Council responded to contacts from Ms B with one of its Family Support Workers from around November 2019. Ms B raised concerns C came home from School with unexplained injuries and may have said something which could indicate sexual abuse.
• Second, how the Council responded to Ms B’s further contacts in January 2020 after C made disclosures of possible sexual abuse at school. Ms B says the Council did not offer C adequate support when she was interviewed by the police; that the Council’s Local Authority Delegated Officer (LADO) did not tell her of actions they were taking and nor did the Council explain any action it was taking to address her concerns with C's school.
• Third, how the Council responded when, during an assessment further to Ms B alerting it to these disclosures, it received a third-party report about her parenting. Ms B and C were abroad at the time. Ms B was in hospital and the Council had contact with another adult I will call ‘Mr D’.
• Fourth, the Council's record keeping. Ms B says the Council has recorded information wrongly on occasion or not in context. For example, about her holiday or in referencing health records. She has also suggested the Council has used pejorative language about her, such as a comment she was 'galivanting'. Ms B considers the Council showed bias in how it approached the child protection investigation - with pre-conceived ideas or looking to suggest she invented her daughter's disclosures. 
• Fifth, whether the Council put unreasonable pressure on Ms B to return her daughter to school after January 2020 and whether it should have been providing alternative provision.
• Sixth, comments made by the Council at a review board. This considered Ms B’s complaint under statutory procedures for investigating complaints about Council Children’s Services.

2. Ms B says as a result of the above:

• there was inadequate investigation of C’s injuries and allegations;
• the Council has retained inaccurate records about her;
• she has been caused unnecessary distress;
• that C missed out on adequate education support for several months while she was not in school;
• she has lost faith with the Council, choosing to no longer receive direct payments to support C’s social care needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
8. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Ms B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided, including in telephone conversations with me;
• records forming a complaint investigation undertaken under the statutory procedures set out in the Children’s Act 1989 which pre-dated our involvement in the case;
• information and comments provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• any relevant law and guidance referred to in the text below.

10. Ms B and the Council were both given a chance to comment on a draft of this statement where I set out provisional findings. I took account of any comments they made before finalising this statement.
11. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Guidance

The Children’s Act 1989

12. This Act sets out the circumstances where a council may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law places an overarching duty on the Council to act in the best interests of the child.
13. The Council may receive referrals from children, parents or third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. These referrals should be considered under safeguarding procedures, used by councils to investigate such concerns. Safeguarding procedures will often involve other agencies such as schools and police who will have an involvement in a child’s welfare.
14. Some referrals engage Section 47 of the Children’s Act. This provides for the Council to respond to concerns a child may be at risk of ‘significant harm’. In turn, this covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
15. Section 47 of the Children’s Act allows the Council to make enquiries with all agencies who work with a child and the family. Social workers should also see the child as soon as possible. Once the Council completes this initial assessment it can take a range of actions. At one extreme it can close a case where it finds no grounds to substantiate concerns and no reason to take any other action. At the opposite it could act to place a child into its care. In between, it has a range of choices including carrying out a detailed assessment of children’s needs. This might lead it to offer services under Section 17 of the Children’s Act.
16. Section 17 refers to services a council must provide to ‘children in need’. A ‘child in need’ is one who “is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”. This is because their “health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision […] of such services” or if they are disabled.
17. Where a Council receives a referral suggesting a child may meet this definition it must carry out an assessment of need. Once completed the Council must decide how to meet any needs and if applicable, offer services to the family. A parent is under no obligation to accept an offer of services made under Section 17.

The Children and Families Complaint procedure

18. The Children’s Act 1989 sets out a complaint procedure for investigating complaints made by or on behalf of children who are unhappy with the actions of council children’s services. Underpinning the procedure are Regulations and guidance contained in a publication entitled “Getting the Best from Complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others”.
19. The statutory procedure has three stages. Stage one gives a council chance to resolve a complaint informally. If it cannot do this, then at stage two it must appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP), who oversees the investigation. The IO produces a report with their findings and the IP produces a report commenting on the investigation. The Council must then respond to that.
20. If a complainant remains unhappy they can then ask for a stage three review. A panel made up of three people independent of the Council hears the review. The panel will consider the grounds for dissatisfaction with the outcome of the stage two investigation and may recommend the Council take further action.

Background to the complaint

21. At the beginning of the events covered by this complaint C was attending a specialist school because of her disabilities. She had an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) naming the school and setting out her education needs. Ms B received a direct payment to buy in care to support her in looking after C. A family friend called ‘Mr D’ acted as C’s carer and received those payments. Because of her disabilities, C, who is of primary school age has some specific communication needs.
22. I note that Children’s Services within the Council’s area are delivered by a not-for-profit social enterprise called Achieving for Children. All references below to the ‘Council’ can also be taken as referring to the actions of Achieving for Children which provides those services on its behalf.
23. Ms B first made a complaint to the Council in April 2020. Her complaint concerned how the Council responded to disclosures made by C when she was at school and an assessment it had undertaken which Ms B said contained misinformation. In an email sent the same time Ms B also complained at contact she (and Mr D) received from a social worker while they were abroad (with C); at a time Ms B had contracted COVID-19 and could not return to the UK.
24. The Council replied to the complaint in May. It defended its investigation of C’s disclosures, its contacts with Ms B while she was abroad and its assessment of C’s needs.
25. Unhappy with this reply, Ms B escalated her complaint through the Children’s Act procedure. A stage two report, written by an IO and approved by an IP, completed in December 2020. I summarise the following findings as relevant to this investigation:

• That a Family Support Worker had responded appropriately to initial concerns raised with her by Ms B in November 2019 and when subsequent concerns were raised with her in January 2020.
• That an investigation into an allegation of potential sexual abuse of C had followed appropriate guidance and procedures.
• That the Council had acted reasonably and proportionately in its contacts with Ms B and Mr D when they were abroad around April 2020.
• However, it found the Council had not been clear in its communications about its purpose in getting in touch with Ms B.
• That an assessment of C’s needs was appropriate and reflected Ms B’s views.

26. The Council accepted these findings but Ms B remained dissatisfied. So she took her complaint to a Review Board which met in March 2021. Of relevance to this investigation the Review Board found:

• That Council processes and procedures were not clearly and fully communicated to Ms B.
• But there was no fault in the Council’s decision not to escalate initial disclosures made by Ms B and C in November 2019. The threshold for escalation to Section 47 enquiries was not met until January 2020.
• That while the Council’s contact with Ms B while abroad was reasonable and proportionate, it noted Ms B had been under no obligation to tell the Council she was going on holiday. It noted the contact caused Ms B understandable distress.
• The Council had offered to work with Ms B “to amend records where deemed appropriate or to place a record pertaining to difference of opinion on file”. The Panel said it would be good practice for the Council to share draft assessments with parents.

27. The Council accepted these findings.
28. Both the Stage 2 and Stage 3 investigations of Ms B’s complaint held that any complaint about education provision for C was outside its remit to comment on.

Complaint 1 – the Council’s response to contact from Ms B in November 2019

29. In November 2019 Ms B received support from a Family Support Worker (FSW) employed by the Council. She raised with her concerns that C came home from school with unexplained injuries such as bruises and scratches. A few days later Ms B also said that C had said something which could have been interpreted as indicating possible sexual abuse. Ms B said C had mentioned two names – a classmate and a teacher. The FSW notes also said Ms B recognised C could become “muddled” and that Ms B “does not feel there is a safeguarding issue or [C] is in danger”.
30. The FSW was copied into emails between Ms B and the school, which sought to offer Ms B reassurance on its supervision of C. The FSW also had a meeting with the school in December. The FSW notes suggest the meeting focused in general terms on C’s progress at school and communications between the school and Ms B. The school suggested Ms B had exaggerated concerns about C having bruises. But there is no other note to suggest discussion of any injuries C may have sustained or the allegation made which may have referred to possible sexual abuse.
31. During December Ms B, the school and FSW engaged in various email communications where again, these matters were not specifically discussed. The school arranged a meeting with Ms B in January to discuss communication issues. Ms B expressed dissatisfaction the meeting did not appear intended to focus on her safeguarding concerns. In the event no meeting took place, after Ms B reported C making further disclosures which led the Council to begin a Section 47 investigation.

Finding

32. I agree with the earlier investigation carried out into this part of the complaint; that the concerns raised by Ms B in November 2019 did not indicate the threshold met where the FSW should have considered C at risk of significant harm and so made a safeguarding referral. There is nothing in the FSW notes to suggest Ms B saw her daughter at risk of any significant harm at the time. Nor is there anything Ms B’s emails that would lead me to think that was her view. If Ms B did not indicate C was at risk of significant harm, then I am not inclined to criticise the judgment of the FSW if this was also their view.
33. I find the FSW was not dismissive of Ms B’s concerns and their notes and communications suggest they wanted to ensure the school listened and responded to those. I consider they could have pressed the school to provide more specific information about how it investigated Ms B’s individual concerns. For example, with regard to specific incidents of bruising or when C made the comment which may have indicated sexual abuse.
34. However, they were aware of the School’s explanation for how it supervised C during the day. And they were seeking to facilitate the planned meeting between Ms B and the school which would have allowed further discussion of how the school responded to specific incidents or allegations. So while the FSW response may have fallen short of best practice I do not consider it so poor that it could be fault.

Complaint 2 – the Council’s response to Ms B’s further contacts in January 2020 after C made disclosures of possible sexual abuse at school

The complaint about the interview

35. In January 2020 Ms B reported to the FSW that C had made further comments which may have suggested she had been the victim of sexual abuse. Ms B said C mentioned a named adult at the school. The FSW raised a safeguarding alert and the Council decided to carry out an investigation under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. It liaised with the police and that service began a criminal investigation.
36. I noted in the initial few days of the investigation there was discussion about C having an interview with the police. Because of her disability it was established she would need help with communication. In early February 2020 a police officer and the social worker visited Ms B and met with C. This was after Ms B objected to a suggestion that a social worker may collect C and take her for an interview. The social work notes recorded C playing with the officers but not talking to them.
37. The following day the social worker said in an email to Ms B that the police would take the lead for deciding how to conduct an interview with C. At the end of the month I noted an email from the police to the social worker suggesting C had two sessions with an intermediary but that she had not given the police any information. A note of a discussion with Ms B in early March appears to confirm this account.
38. There is no note or email suggesting Ms B had any concern with the process being followed further to the visit to her home in early February 2020. And the next note referring to the police investigation was at the beginning of April 2020 when the police told the Council they had no basis on which to proceed further with an investigation into the named adult at the school.

Finding

39. I have considered Government guidance in a document called ‘Working Together’ which sets out the expectations of authorities investigating child safeguarding concerns. This cross-references further guidance from the Ministry of Justice called ‘Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses’, which I have also considered.
40. Achieving Best Evidence makes clear that where the police are investigating a potential crime, it is the police who take the lead for deciding how and when any interview of a child should take place. The police can ask social workers to lead an interview when carrying out concurrent Section 47 enquiries. But it is at their discretion. It is also for the police to decide what support a child may need at interview.
41. In this case I understand Ms B’s concern is that while C was provided with someone who could help interpret during the interview (because of her communication difficulties); C did not have anyone else present to support her. In other words, the role of the intermediary was independent. Ms B considers C may have repeated disclosures had a trusted adult been present to support her.
42. While I understand Ms B’s concern, and while I accept there may have been a role for the Council in supporting this, there is no evidence that it was aware of any contemporaneous concern around the police’s interactions with C. There is no email or note of a conversation with Ms B where this matter was raised. And there is no note of the police or any third party raising this as a concern. As the police had the underlying responsibility for arranging any interviews with C I see no basis to find fault with the Council in relation to this matter.

The complaint about the LADO involvement

43. A LADO becomes involved where an allegation is made against an adult who works with children. In this case C’s disclosure to Ms B named an adult at the school she attended.
44. The LADO does not investigate allegations. But they are responsible for drawing up a risk assessment and safety plan. The Council says these remain confidential and the LADO does not usually communicate direct with parents.
45. The LADO was told of the allegation about the school employee at the outset. They contacted the school Board of Governors the next day. They agreed with the Chair a safety plan. Thereafter they have provided a timeline showing they liaised regularly with the school, police and social worker to follow progress of the police and social work investigations. On conclusion of the police investigation which found no evidence to substantiate the allegations, the LADO closed their involvement.
46. I found on Ms B’s case notes an email sent to her by the social worker in February 2020 which said “the police and LADO will continue their investigation”.
47. In mid-March 2020 Ms B asked for an update on the progress of “the police and LADO” investigation. Following an exchange of emails while Ms B was abroad (see below) she said the Council had never given her an update on the LADO’s involvement.
48. The LADO told the Council social worker when they concluded their involvement in the case. But this information was not passed on to Ms B.

Finding

49. I make no criticism of the Council LADO involvement in this case. I recognise all the Council has said about the role of this officer being to liaise with the employer of the adult working with children and not directly with parents. Also, that a LADO does not conduct their own investigation but may encourage others to do so or be kept informed of ongoing investigations. That is what happened in this case.
50. However, it would appear the Council social worker gave the impression the LADO was conducting an investigation separate to that of the police. This being so it is understandable that Ms B wanted an update on progress.
51. It was fault therefore for the Council to give this misleading impression. It was also fault for the Council not to correct it when Ms B first asked for an update.
52. The faults caused some injustice to Ms B in the form of unnecessary frustration, time and trouble.
53. I consider as part of ‘complaint 4’ below, Ms B’s concerns that she was not told of action the Council was taking with the school to address her safeguarding concerns.

Complaint 3 - the Council’s response to a third-party report about Ms B’s parenting

54. As part of its Section 47 enquiries the Council undertook an assessment of C. While this was ongoing, in March 2020, the Council received an anonymous referral which made allegations about Ms B’s parenting. The Council wanted to put the allegations to Ms B and spoke to her a few days later via a video call. At the time Ms B was on holiday abroad. The notes of the call say the social worker saw C while she was speaking to Ms B. During the call Ms B suggesting knowing the identity of the third party contact and suggested their motivation in making allegations against her was malicious. The notes say Ms B said she would forward messages from the third party to prove this. The notes also recorded Ms B saying it was difficult to make travel plans to come back to the UK because of the developing COVID-19 pandemic.
55. Around a week later the social worker sent an email to Ms B to say she had completed her assessment. The social worker asked to do another video call in the next week.
56. To this Ms B replied the same day saying she was still abroad and now in hospital with suspected COVID-19. Ms B said there could be no meeting until she got back to the UK and she would be in touch when she recovered. She said the social worker could speak with Mr D who remained in the UK. The social worker went on to call Mr D later that day, asking about C’s welfare. Mr D explained C was staying in the hospital with Ms B. The social worker said they needed to see C to carry out a welfare check and Mr D said he would arrange a call for two days’ time.
57. Then, later the same day a social work manager also called Mr D saying the Council wanted more information about C’s welfare. The manager reported Mr D losing his temper, while Mr D reported the manager as being rude. After the call Mr D sent an email to the social worker saying C was in hospital with Ms B and that he would forward evidence of this the next day.
58. The social work manager replied to that email saying the Council wanted assurance about C’s welfare because she was “a young child that is known to social services, she has been out of the country for a number of weeks and not seen by us”. The manager said there had been “a lack of visits” to C and the Council had not been told she was going abroad. The email also said Mr D had provided no evidence the allegations made against Ms B “were malicious and untrue”. Later that day the manager also sent an email to Ms B asking to get in touch, which she would receive around 10:00pm local time.
59. Ms B replied the same evening. She repeated she was abroad, in hospital, her daughter was with her and that she regarded the latest communication as amounting to bullying and harassment. The following day Ms B again repeated C was with her in a private room in a private hospital. I did not see any records the Council social work team attempted to contact Ms B again while she remained abroad.

Finding

60. I accept the Council was under a duty to consider the anonymous referral it received about Ms B’s parenting given its overarching duty to C’s welfare. However, I note at the outset the allegations made about Ms B related to long-term concerns about alleged behaviour and did not say C was in any immediate danger.
61. I also note the Council spoke to Ms B about the allegations within a few days of receiving them. It learnt she was abroad and saw C during a video call. There is nothing in the note of that call to suggest the social worker had any immediate concerns for C’s welfare.
62. A week later, the Council learnt Ms B was still abroad and now also in hospital. Given the overarching aim of the Council was to consider C’s welfare I think it reasonable the Council wanted assurance about her welfare also. I can understand why the initial call with Mr D may not have provided full reassurance. However, there is nothing in the note of that call to suggest Mr D was not co-operative. Or that the Council wanted him to act with any more urgency when he said he would provide some evidence to confirm C’s wellbeing in two days’ time.
63. In which case the further contact Mr D received the same day from the social work manager must have been confusing. I can take no view on what took place in that conversation where both parties have made accusations about the other’s behaviour. But I have concerns about the content of the email the manager sent to Mr D afterwards.
64. First, I do not find the suggestion C had been out of the country ‘several weeks’ borne out by the evidence, as she had been seen by the social worker in early March. This statement also failed to take account that Ms B had already explained difficulties leaving the country she was in due to the pandemic before falling ill. Second, nor do I understand the comment about C having a ‘lack of visits’. The case notes show the Council social worker had seen C in person at the end of January, in early February and early March. There was also no acknowledgement the social worker had seen C on the video call a week earlier. There is nothing in the notes of the case that suggests Ms B ever tried to obstruct social work access to C. Third, there is no understanding shown in the email that if Ms B was ill, she may have had good reason for not forwarding the text messages further to her conversation with the social worker.
65. I therefore cannot agree with the findings of the earlier investigation of Ms B’s complaint in looking at this matter. While in general terms there was no fault in the Council wanting to check on C’s welfare, I find the manner in which it went about doing so here was excessive and failed to take account of the relevant factors listed above. So, this justifies a finding of fault. The injustice this caused was unnecessary distress to Ms B.

Complaint 4 – about the Council's record keeping

66. I asked the Council to supply me with a copy of the single assessment for C which Ms B has made complaints about. The assessment records comments from Ms B’s GP that she has a “history of previous anxiety and depression”. This is in the context of a passage where the GP says there is “no record to suggest mum cannot respond appropriately” to C’s needs. The assessment records in two places that Ms B is unhappy with this reference to her having treatment for anxiety and depression. It notes she received these treatments following two specific traumatic events in her life.
67. I find no reference to the phrase ‘galivanting’ when referring to Ms B going abroad. However, it is recorded in the assessment that Ms B has a job which can take her abroad. And in their comments authorising the assessment the social work manager wrote “my concern is that it is safe for C to go to school but her mother is not allowing her to go and instead taking her to work across different countries and this is not acceptable”.
68. I note the assessment does not otherwise list this as a concern. In a passage headed ‘what are we worried about’ the assessment refers to C’s disclosures and the school not following safeguarding procedures. The assessment notes “there needs to be continuing dialogue with school around the concerns raised previously and safeguarding procedures”.
69. I can find no reference in the assessment to any suggestion Ms B was inventing C’s disclosures.

Finding

70. I do not find fault in how the comments of Ms B’s GP were recorded in the assessment. First, they are put in the context of the GP making supportive comments about Ms B’s parenting and the sentence, even without Ms B’s qualification makes clear any treatment was of a historic nature. Second, the assessment provides Ms B’s explanation for why she received treatment for anxiety and depression. I think it is clear to the reader therefore that this treatment arose from specific traumatic events in Ms B’s life and had little or no bearing on C's welfare at the time of the assessment.
71. I consider it was reasonable for the manager to express concerns about C not going to school, something that was known to the Council at the time of the assessment. I also consider they could reasonably express the opinion the school was ‘safe’. Although it would be preferable had the reasons for this statement been made. Because it may appear at odds with those passages of the assessment I referred to above which said the Council should undertake more work with the school around investigating Ms B’s concerns and its safeguarding procedures.
72. Overall, I found little evidence of the Council carrying out such work with the school nor feeding back to Ms B the result of any such work, a concern she raised as part of ‘complaint 2’ summarised above. However, I note that by the time this assessment completed, Ms B appeared resolved not to send C back to the same school (already referring to alternative placements with the social worker). It is also clear around this time Ms B’s relations with the social work service had become strained because of the contacts she received while abroad. It seems clear from the assessment the social worker intended carrying out more work in this area, but I consider these factors likely prevented it. And I am not persuaded any failings here will have had any significant bearing on the overall course of events in this case. So, even if there was fault here, it did not cause Ms B injustice.
73. As I have noted above, I did not find any reference to Ms B travelling abroad being referred to in pejorative language such as ‘galivanting’. However, there is a statement that Ms B had taken C to work with her abroad which is not borne out in the rest of the document. I consider this is a factual inaccuracy and therefore justifies a finding of fault
74. The social work notes make one reference which may explain where this statement came from. In late January 2020, during a note of a call between the social worker and Ms B by telephone, the social worker recorded Ms B was taking C to work with her “and they were getting on the flight as we were speaking”. However, there are other notes on the file which refer to Ms B making child-minding arrangements when she goes abroad. So, I do not consider such a statement should have been made without this matter being explored as part of the assessment.
75. The injustice this remark causes is that it will have added to the impression given also while Ms B was abroad, that the Council was treating her with some bias and unfairness. It will have therefore caused unnecessary distress.

Complaint 5 – that Ms B was pressured to return C to school and C did not receive alternative education

76. It is agreed by the Council that both its social work and education service became aware that Ms B had not sent C back to school, within around two weeks of the disclosure she made in January 2020. I saw email communications which explained the Council wanted to bring forward an emergency review of C’s EHCP. It initially planned this for mid-February, but then says it postponed to wait advice from the LADO.
77. The Council says in early March 2020 the LADO agreed a review could proceed and the Council offered dates to Ms B before the end of the month. These did not fit her work schedule and so the date was moved to early April. But then Ms B asked for a postponement because of the impact of COVID-19 (and I note this was the time when she found herself abroad and unable to return to the UK). In late April 2020 Ms B asked for the emergency review to go ahead.
78. A date was set for mid-May but Ms B was not given two weeks’ notice of the date and so the Council agreed, again on her request, to postpone until early June. At which point C’s school withdrew from the process. The Council says in mid-June 2020, following the review it agreed to seek a different placement for C, but this was something its Panel of decision makers initially rejected.
79. Ms B appealed this decision. However, the case never went to a SEND tribunal. This was because in November 2020 the Council agreed a different school placement for C. And details of an amended EHCP for C were agreed by January 2021. However, until November 2020 it was the view of the Council education service that C had a placement at her school and it was reasonable for Ms B to continue sending her there.

Finding

80. I do not consider I can fault the time taken for the review of C’s EHCP in 2020. I am satisfied the Council responded appropriately in seeking to bring forward this review once it learnt of Ms B’s decision to stop sending C to school in the light of her disclosure. I note there was some initial delay while the Council sought advice from its LADO. But I do not consider this was inappropriate and nor was any delay enough to find fault. The Council went on to make its best efforts to review C’s EHCP in March or April 2020.
81. That this did not happen was not due to fault by the Council. It responded to Ms B’s requests to delay a review and she then asked for a further postponement in May 2020. It may appear surprising that when the review finally took place in June 2020 and recommended a change of placement, the Council considered C could continue to attend the same school. This is especially as the school itself had refused to take part in the review. It was evident relations between Ms B and the school had broken down at that point.
82. However, that is not a decision I can take issue with. Ms B may understandably have disagreed with the judgment that C could return to the same school where relations had broken down. But the law provided her with an alternative route of redress, which was to exercise her route of appeal, which she went on to do. I note the matter never reached Tribunal with both parties agreeing during the Autumn term of 2020 an alternative placement for C. But it would not be appropriate for me to take any view on the Council’s position once Ms B exercised that right of appeal.
83. I can therefore only take a view on whether it was reasonable for the Council to have expected Ms B to send C back to school between February and June 2020 and whether indeed it put any unreasonable pressure on her to do so. However, I do not consider I can find fault here. Because it was reasonable for the Council to defer any decision on the ongoing suitability of C’s placement and any ongoing provision she needed, until it held a review. And for the reasons explored above that review was postponed several times, mainly at the request of Ms B and not the Council. In the meantime, I did not see evidence of the Council bringing any undue pressure to bear on Ms B to return C to school.
84. This is not to say that it may not have suggested Ms B do so. And while I can understand Ms B’s reasons for not doing so (a position which C’s social worker also commented was understandable in their notes), I saw no evidence suggesting the Council engaged in anything other than a reasonable dialogue with Ms B during those months.

Complaint 6 – the Council’s response during the complaint process

85. I investigated the statement made during the Review Board hearing where the Council representative said they had offered to work with Ms B “to amend records where deemed appropriate or to place a record pertaining to difference of opinion on file”. I asked the Council what work it had done to progress this. It told me there had been delay “in taking forward this action”. But that its social worker had now contacted Ms B to find out if she has any further amendments to those submitted to the Stage 3 Panel. It sent me a copy of that email dated October 2021.

Finding

86. The Stage 3 review board met over six months before the Council sent its email to Ms B referred to above. I consider that delay excessive and justifies a finding of fault. The delay will have caused Ms B additional unnecessary frustration, time and trouble.

Summary

87. In summary therefore I find the Council at fault for the following:

• For not communicating properly to Ms B the role of its LADO. This is in addition to those earlier findings made during the complaint procedure that at other times the Council did not always communicate effectively how its child protection procedures worked and to explain its Section 47 investigation.
• For some of its communications while Ms B was abroad which were excessive and inappropriate in content.
• For a statement that appears in C’s single assessment which suggested Ms B regularly took B abroad with her while at work.
• For the delay in contacting Ms B to discuss amending its records to correct inaccuracies or to better reflect her views.

88. I have set out above my view on the injustice this caused Ms B. But to reiterate I find these faults will have caused distress as well as unnecessary frustration, time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

89. The Council has accepted these findings and recommendations I made to remedy Ms B’s injustice. It has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it will:
1. apologise to her accepting the findings of this investigation;
2. invite Ms B to a meeting to note on her file any factual inaccuracies and/or record her dissenting views in line with advice at paragraph 90 below;
3. pay Ms B £500; made up of £300 to recognise her distress and £200 to recognise her time and trouble.
90. With regard to its record-keeping, in the event Ms B declines the suggested meeting the Council should allow her 20 working days to provide a statement explaining any corrections and/or statement she would like placing on C’s social care notes to correct factual inaccuracies or record a difference of views. The Council should respond to that statement within the next 20 working days explaining the action it has taken or proposes to take. As a minimum I expect the Council to agree to put a clear note on the single assessment to record that Ms B has not regularly taken C abroad when working as suggested therein. Once these actions have completed, any remaining disagreement on this matter can be referred by Ms B to this office for further consideration.
91. Within two months of this decision the Council has agreed that it will also issue a briefing note to social care staff seeking to learn lessons from the findings of this investigation. This note should ensure relevant staff are reminded on the need:

• to be clear with parents about the role of a LADO in any cases which have LADO involvement;
• to take care with language and not to misrepresent facts when social work staff find themselves having conversations or email communications with parents they may find challenging;
• to ensure that assessments clearly distinguish between facts and opinion; and where an opinion relies on facts that the facts are clearly set out in the body of the document.

92. Finally, within one month of a final decision on this complaint the Council has also agreed that it will write to us and explain what procedure it has in place, or proposes putting in place, to ensure that any actions promised at a review boards are delivered to avoid delay.

Back to top

Final decision

93. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms B. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can now complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman