Summary: We found fault on Mrs P’s complaint about the Council failing to follow procedures during its child protection investigation of her family. Previous risk assessments were lost and not passed to the new social worker. It failed to keep evidence of its own investigation of her complaint about a social worker. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs P complains about the Council failing to follow procedures when carrying out a child protection investigation involving her family: as a result, she feels discriminated against and unfairly victimised which caused her and her children a great deal of upset, stress, and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered all the information Mrs P sent, as well as the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs P and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. In August 2018, the government introduced statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. The guidance provides a framework for organisations and agencies working with children and families to have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children. Such policies should make a clear distinction between an allegation, a concern about the quality of care or practice, or a complaint. An allegation may relate to a person who works with children who has:

• behaved in a way that has or may have harmed a child;
• possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child;
• behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicated they may pose a risk of harm to children.

The Council’s policies and procedures

8. Councils should have a designated officer, or a team of officers, to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people that work with children.
9. The role of the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children. They are not responsible for undertaking investigations. They can provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations. The LADO does not:

• undertake any investigation;
• have direct communication with the person subject of the allegation;
• provide advice and support to the person subject of the allegation;
• provide HR advice in respect of suspension or dismissal.

10. Assessments must be based on good analysis, timeliness and transparency, and be proportionate to the needs of the child and family.

Back to top

What happened

11. Mrs P lives with her two children and husband (Mr Q). The father of the eldest child is her former husband. The father of the youngest child is Mr Q. Mrs P has a job involving contact with children. Both her and Mr Q gave up some of their free time for work which involved contact with children.
12. In September 2022, the Council received a referral from the police about Mrs P’s husband. This was following concerns about indecent images of children possessed and distributed from a mobile telephone within the family home. The police searched the home and found indecent images of children on a hidden phone.
13. The following month, the Council decided her children were at risk from Mr Q and placed them on a child protection plan (category: sexual abuse). This was after an Initial Child Protection Conference.
14. The Council decided to carry out a Child and Family Assessment. The purpose of this was to gather enough information about the children and family to understand its needs. It would be used to make decisions about the nature and impact of those concerns and what intervention or support was needed. This type of assessment decides whether a child meets the criteria for ongoing services as a ‘Child in Need’ and/or is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
15. The Council had concerns about Mrs P’s ability to safeguard her children from the potential risks Mr Q posed. This was due to comments she made to a social worker. Mrs P said she had a ‘gut feeling’ the children were not at risk and while the situation was bad, it was not as bad as it could have been. Mrs P denied dismissing the risk posed to her children. In response to my draft decision, she said she had stated it was her gut feeling that Mr Q posed a low risk to her children.
16. The Council instructed a psychologist to carry out a full independent assessment (the assessment) of Mrs P. This would: see if she posed a risk to the children; look at her ability to recognise and understand the concerns; consider her ability to safeguard the children; identify any support needed. This was completed in January 2023.
17. In May, the court granted the Council Interim Care Orders with both children to remain in Mrs P’s care. An Interim Care Order means the Council shares parental responsibility for the children and has the power to make decisions about where they live and about their welfare. These were discharged in July.
18. In September, the Council started proceedings for Interim Supervision Orders for both children. The court can consider making these orders, which places the children temporarily under the supervision of the Council, until it can make a final decision about what is best for them. They are made where the court has reasonable grounds for believing the threshold criteria of harm is met.
19. I considered the following complaints Mrs P made about the Council:

Record keeping:

20. Mrs P complained the Council failed to complete or record risk assessments of family members able to supervise contact between her husband and daughter. While the original risk assessments were done in October 2022, she was unhappy they had to be done again in April 2023. This was because the Council could not locate the original documents.
21. The Council accepted and apologised for the failures which led to the risk assessments having to be done again. It explained this was because the initial assessments were not handed over from one social worker to the one who took over the case. The new social worker considered the assessments were necessary, which was why they were done again.
22. The Council accepted this was an administrative error. It could not say whether the new social worker questioned the previous one about the assessments done before asking for further ones.

My findings

23. I found fault on this complaint. The initial risk assessments should have been kept and passed to the new social worker. As the Council accepted, there was nothing to show whether the new social worker contacted the previous one about the assessments already done, their outcomes, or whether there was a real need to do further ones.
24. I am satisfied the failure caused Mrs P an injustice as she suffered frustration at repeating the supervised contact sessions, so the new social worker had information about how they were. I am unable to say whether the additional assessments would have been necessary had the original ones been available to the new social worker. I note the Council already apologised to Mrs P for these failures.

Her assessment before husband’s:

25. Mrs P complained the Council carried out her risk assessment before it did Mr Q’s. She was unhappy it ignored her husband’s initial decision to co-operate with his assessment before he refused to be part of it.
26. The Council confirmed:

• her husband’s assessment would have ideally been done before hers but, he decided not to engage after advice from his solicitor. This did not prevent her assessment from being done.
• her assessment was considered necessary because of the nature of the concerns raised and the risk to the children.
• it needed to know whether she could appropriately safeguard her children. These were serious allegations against her husband and assessments were needed of both parents. The police were still investigating her husband.

My findings

27. I found no fault on this complaint. While her husband initially agreed to co-operate with the assessment, within a very short period, he decided not to do so because of advice from his solicitor. I am satisfied the time scale between his agreement, and his refusal, was short.
28. I say this because the Council became aware of the allegations against him in September and in October, he withdrew his consent. On balance, I consider it unlikely the Council could have arranged the assessment in such a short period of time. It was also likely that even if the Council had started taking steps to arrange the assessment immediately, Mr Q’s solicitors would have advised him to stop co-operating.
29. While it would have been preferable for her husband’s assessment to be done before hers, in all the circumstances this was not possible. It was important the Council had an assessment done of Mrs P as soon as possible to explore its concerns.

Inexperienced psychologist:

30. Mrs P complained the Council failed to ensure the psychological assessment done on her ability to protect the children was done by a suitable professional. She claimed the psychologist had no experience assessing risk in this kind of case. Nor did she believe the assessment was done correctly.
31. The Council argued the most suitable professional was used and while not having direct experience of assessing ‘protectiveness’ where there were online sexual offences, she was a qualified clinical psychologist with suitable experience. It provided a copy of the psychologist’s CV which it said showed she had appropriate experience and qualifications. Her training included areas such as safeguarding children and the sexual abuse of women and children. Her area of expertise included Criminal-Assessing sexual knowledge and understanding sexual offences.
32. It maintained the assessment, while lacking in areas concerning Mr Q, was valid.
33. The social worker who arranged the assessment made a referral to the Council’s Brokerage Team which looked at potential providers for an assessment. The social worker and team manager then chose the most appropriate provider from those who responded. The decision was based on experience and expertise.
34. In its stage 1 response, the Council accepted the assessment did not provide all the required information it wanted. It arranged a further assessment done by a separate organisation.

My findings

35. I found no fault on this complaint. The evidence showed the psychologist was suitably qualified and experienced for the Council to choose her to carry out this assessment. The fact the psychologist did not provide all the information needed in the report was not the Council’s fault.

Social worker’s decision based on opinion and not facts:

36. Mrs P argued the social worker’s decision about her ability to protect her children was not based on factual evidence but opinion.
37. The Council rejected this claim and noted social workers’ opinions were formed using professional judgement, experience, and expertise when considering the facts taken from the assessment.

My findings

38. I found no fault on this complaint. The records I have seen confirmed what the Council claimed. The records show professionally observed and recorded accounts from social workers involved.

Disclosing assessment:

39. Mrs P is unhappy the Council, through the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), shared the assessment not only with her employer but with her former husband. The LADO is the officer notified when there is a claim a professional, or volunteer who works with children, has behaved in a way that has harmed a child, may have done so, and possibly committed a criminal offence against, or related to, a child. The LADO’s role is set out in ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (2018) and governed by section 11 of the Children Act 2004.
40. The Council confirmed it had a statutory obligation to share relevant information with her employer. It considered it acted appropriately. It confirmed the LADO received a request from an organisation which was the regulatory authority for Mrs P’s job. This organisation legally requested it as part of its own investigation. The Council received advice it was statutorily obliged to share this information with the authority.
41. Information was also shared with her employer during a ‘Position of Trust Meeting’. This is a multi-agency safeguarding meeting about concerns raised about an adult who works with, or has contact with, children or young people either in a paid or unpaid capacity. It is part of the LADO procedures. Parents and members of staff are not able to join the meeting, contribute to it, or appeal its decision. Their consent to share documents was not needed if it was about safeguarding children. The meeting only shared a summary, so the employer did not see the full assessment report.
42. While Mrs P did not give consent for information to be shared with her former husband, the Council decided it should send it to him as he had parental responsibility for one of the children. His son was subject to a child protection plan at the time and so it shared a redacted copy of her assessment.

My findings

43. I found no fault on this complaint. I am satisfied the information was shared appropriately by the LADO both to the regulatory authority, her employer, and to her former husband. This was because the information was shared with organisations with the aim of safeguarding children.

Incorrect statements that indecent images were found on her husband’s mobile phone:

44. Mrs P complained social workers wrongly claimed indecent images were found on her husband’s mobile phone.
45. The Council noted this issue continues before the Family Court which it is a party to at the moment. This means as the court can highlight any false representations it is not a matter it addressed under its own complaints process. In addition, the Council said the police investigation continues.
46. Council records state Mr Q was arrested by the police for possession/distribution of category C images which were uploaded to an online account. The letter of instruction to the psychologist stated he was arrested due to concerns about indecent images being possessed and distributed from his mobile phone.

My findings

47. Whether or not the social workers were wrong to claim indecent photographs were found on her husband’s phone, I note the police investigation of her husband is ongoing. Until the end of the investigation, I am unable to say whether the social workers’ claims were wrong based on their knowledge at the time from information the police supplied. I will not investigate this complaint further.

Social worker’s conduct:

48. Mrs P complains about the social worker showing no empathy, sensitivity, or good professional practice. She also complained about her aggressive, bullying, and intimidating behaviour.
49. The Council denied these claims although accepted she could have could have been more empathetic and less direct in her approach. It concluded her behaviour was not bullying or unprofessional. The social worker met Mrs P and offered her an apology for how she came across in a meeting.

My findings

50. During its investigation of the claims against the social worker, the Council failed to make and retain notes of interviews, discussions, or copy emails about it. I consider this failure amounts to fault. It is important during an investigation to make and retain records. This helps when reviewing decisions to ensure evidence supports conclusions reached.
51. I consider this caused Mrs P some injustice as she has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Council properly considered her complaint. I note the social worker met Mrs P and apologised for how she had come across in a meeting.
52. I cannot reach a decision on whether the social worker acted unprofessionally to Mrs P. This is because the social worker no longer works for the Council, there are no records of its investigation of this complaint, and many of the allegations involved face to face contact between the social worker and Mrs P. The pursuit of this complaint further does not justify the further use of public funds.

Poor complaint handling:

53. Mrs P was unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her formal complaint about its actions.
54. It offered her £300 to acknowledge the delays with its response to her solicitor’s March 2023 letter.
55. She complained on 2 May under the first stage of its complaints procedure and the Council responded 20 days later.
56. On 30 May, she asked for her complaint to go to the second stage of its complaints procedure.
57. On 3 July, the Council wrote to her and explained it was unable to meet the 25-working day timescale set for Stage 2 complaints. The Council told her it needed to extend the timescale to the maximum 65 working days which was 30 August. The Council responded on 30 August.
58. Unhappy with the outcome, she wrote to the Council who offered to meet her which she refused. She was signposted to us when she said she wanted it independently reviewing.

My findings

59. The Council’s complaints procedure states Stage 1 of the process involves sending a full response within 15 working days of the complaint receipt. Where an investigation is unlikely to be completed within this time frame, the Council can extend it by 20 working days.
60. Stage 2 of the complaints process gives the Council 25 working days to respond although this can be extended to a maximum of 65 working days.
61. There was no fault at Stage 1 as the Council responded within its 15 working day time frame.
62. There was no fault at Stage 2 as the Council told her it could not meeting the 25-working day Stage 2 timescale and needed to increase it to the maximum 65 working days. It sent the response within that time scale.

Failure to meet timescales, carry out statutory visits, and poor decision making:

63. Mrs P complained about the time taken to carry out its assessment, missing statutory visits, and general poor decision making.
64. The Council explained the length of intervention was affected by the police investigation which continues, her husband deciding not to engage with the specialist assessment, and ongoing court proceedings. The Council explained parties to court proceedings were updated in November 2023. This update was the police investigation needed access to information held outside of the UK which meant further work. The Council argued the overall time taken was outside of its control.
65. Statutory visits are completed once every ten working days when children are supported by a Child Protection Plan. This could change depending on the specific needs of the child/family. This was set out in the Child Protection Plan and reviewed through Core Group meetings. With the exception of the elder child, all visits took place within the required timescales. This exception happened because her son was with his father at the time. A further visit was done five days later.

My findings

66. I found no fault on this complaint. In reaching this view, I note:

• The children were made subject to Child Protection Plans in October 2022. I have seen records of all visits for both children from that date to February 2024. I am satisfied visits were done as required every ten working days. There was one exception, and this was when the eldest child was away with his father.
• I am also satisfied the overall time the Council has been involved with the family was not always within its control but subject to external bodies and proceedings.
• I have seen no evidence of poor decision making as claimed.

Back to top

Agreed action

67. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also took account of the apologies the Council already gave Mrs P and the £300 offered for failing to respond to her solicitor’s letter.
68. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mrs P an apology for failing to make and retain notes while investigating her complaint against a social worker; and
2. Review why copies of the initial assessments were not kept and handed to the new social worker.
69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

70. I found fault on Mrs P’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman