Summary: Z complained the Council failed to safeguard their child, Child A. Z said the Council did not respond to a safeguarding referral made by Child A’s school, leaving them without support. Z also complained about poor communication and complaints handling. The Council processed the Prevent referral in line with government guidance and was not at fault. The Council was at fault for poor communication and delayed stage 1 complaints handling which caused Z frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and offered a symbolic payment for the poor stage 1 complaints handling and reviewed its communication procedures to prevent reoccurrence of the faults. This remedied the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Z complained the Council failed to safeguard their child, Child A. Z said the Council did not respond to a safeguarding referral made by Child A’s school, leaving Child A and family without any support. Z said Child A’s behaviour had deteriorated which caused significant distress. Z also complained about poor communication and complaints handling causing frustration.

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 publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• documents provided by the complainant and spoke to them on the telephone;
• documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries; and
• relevant law and guidance and our guidance on remedies published on our website.
8. Z and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Child protection

9. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47).

Prevent referrals

10. The Prevent referral process is part of the Government's wider counter-terrorism strategy. It requires specified authorities such as education, health, local authorities, police and criminal justice agencies (prisons and probation) to help prevent the risk of people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

Council guidance

11. The Council safeguarding policy is set out in the ‘Telford and Wrekin Partnership Threshold Guidance’. It uses a partnership approach to assess and support children and families. It promotes conversations at the earliest opportunity. The Partnership Threshold Guidance is a tool for practitioners to identify the threshold of need for children and their families. Under the ‘vulnerable’ threshold children, young people and families that have unmet needs may require coordinated support from Early Help Services by an early help assessment.
12. Early help identifies needs within families at the earliest opportunity and proactively offering preventative support before needs become more complex. It is a joint responsibility between different organisations such as teachers and the police.

Council complaint process

13. The Council had a two stage corporate complaints process, when Z complained as follows:
• Stage 1: complaints to be acknowledged within two days of receipt and a full response provided within 15 working days. If the complaint is complicated it may take longer and the Council would keep the complainant informed.
• Stage 2: if a complaint is escalated to stage 2 a full investigation would be considered by an independent senior formal complaint investigator. A full response would be provided within 25 working days. If the deadline could not be met a progress reply would be sent to the complainant. The investigation would be completed within a maximum of 65 working days.

What happened

14. Child A attended School 1. In late 2022 and 2023, Child A’s parent, Z, and School 1 had concerns about Child A’s beliefs, language used and were concerned Child A had been radicalised online. Z shared their concerns with School 1 in several meetings.
15. Later in 2023 School 1 submitted a Prevent referral to the Council about Child A.
16. Two days after the Council received the Prevent referral about Child A, a Counter Terrorism officer discussed the referral with a Council social worker, Officer 1. Counter Terrorism said it and the Police would review the case. It agreed Officer 1 would talk to Child A’s parents about the Prevent referral. The same day Officer 1 tried to call Z but they did not answer. The next day Officer 1 spoke to Z on the telephone. Z explained their concerns about Child A to Officer 1 and support services were discussed with Z. Officer 1 explained to Z they would have to wait for an update on the Prevent referral. Z gave consent for agency checks to be completed. Officer 1 said they would call Z in a week.
17. Officer 1 did not call Z back. Z called the Council twice. Officer 1 was not available and Z spoke to another Council officer. Z said Child A had been excluded from School 1 because of their escalating behaviour and would return to School 1 the following week. Z said support could have stopped the exclusion. The Council officer said a senior officer would look at the case and call Z back, no timescale for the call back was given.
18. Following multi-agency involvement, including the police, it decided Child A was vulnerable and would benefit from early help.
19. Two weeks later and over the school summer holiday, Officer 1 made a referral to School 1 to complete an early help assessment for Child A.
20. At the start of the next academic year Z complained to the Council about lack of communication and lack of support from the Council. Z said they had not heard from the Council in over eight weeks.
21. The next working day the Council sent Z a complaint acknowledgement email and said it would respond by the end of the month.
22. At the start of the following month the Council spoke to Z on the telephone and said it had referred Child A’s concerns back to School 1. The same day a Council officer contacted School 1 about Child A’s early help assessment.
23. Z did not receive the stage 1 response by the extension date the Council had promised.
24. Z escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaint process.
25. The Council emailed and spoke to School 1 about Child A. School 1 said it did not have any radicalisation concerns with Child A but it would undertake an early help assessment. The Council told School 1 it would contact a specialist child exploitation team to review if further support could be provided.
26. Z emailed the Council several times and complained they had not been provided with an update since the phone call earlier in the month. The Council chased updates from School 1 and the specialist child exploitation team and agreed to consider Z’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process.
27. In late 2023 the Council sent Z a stage 2 response and said:
• it had promised to provide updates to Z but they did not receive them all and there were periods of delay. The Council apologised and proposed the following recommendations:
1. where a call back was promised, a timescale would be given to ensure customers know when to expect an update, or a call back would be made on an agreed date and time to suit both parties;
2. where a call back or update was not possible due to delays outside the Council’s control, the customer should be updated, and a new date given for an update to be provided; and
3. where an email acknowledgement gave a date for a response to a customer, if that timescale was unable to be met due to the number of enquiries received, the customer should be acknowledged with a reasonable timescale that they could expect a response.
• Z would receive a timescale for response from the Council for any future contact Z had with the Council;
• it apologised for no stage 1 response;
• it would offer a remedy payment of £100 for Z’s time and trouble chasing the stage 1 complaint response and £100 for delay in receiving the response;
• Officer 1 made referrals to external agencies;
• Counter Terrorism said Child A had not been radicalised that required its intervention and School 1 could deliver the support requested;
• School 1 had not raised concerns that it could not provide the relevant support to Child A. This advice had not been communicated to Z by the Council and it apologised;
• concerns about the early help assessment delay would need to be raised with School 1; and
• our details were given if Z remained unhappy.
28. Z remained unhappy and contacted us.

Enquiries

29. In response to my enquiries the Council provided evidence it had reminded relevant staff to carry out the recommendations stated above in paragraph 27.

My findings

Prevent referral

30. Following receipt of the Prevent referral the Council liaised and sought advice from other agencies, including the police. The multi-agency advice was to carry out an early help assessment and the Council passed this back to School 1. The Council processed the Prevent referral appropriately and without fault.

Communication

31. The Council accepts there was evidence of poor communication when its officers promised updates and call backs. The Council acknowledges that was not always carried out and caused Z frustration and time and trouble. The Council has already made service improvements, explained in paragraph 27 above and shown evidence it has reminded relevant staff of these improvements. This is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Z. No further recommendations were needed.

Complaints handling

32. The Council failed to deal with Z's stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy. It failed to provide a stage 1 response, that was fault. The Council offered Z £200 to acknowledge any injustice this caused which is appropriate. It is open to Z to contact the Council if they wish to accept this. The Council issued its stage 2 response within the maximum 65 working days which was in line with its complaint policy and was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation finding fault causing injustice by poor communication and poor stage 1 complaint handling which the Council has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman