https://researchingreform.net/2023/04/28/new-ombudsman-complaints-decisions-show-surge-in-concerns-about-the-child-protection-system/New ombudsman complaints decisions show surge in concerns about the child protection system
28 Friday Apr 2023
Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published the latest round of complaints submitted by parents and carers to the body, and its decisions about those complaints. They touch on children’s social care, local authority handling of child protection cases and the provision of education and educational support.
The latest round of decisions about child welfare complaints submitted by parents shows a sharp rise in the number of concerns about child protection investigations, and the family court process that often accompanies them.
While the ombudsman is typically unable to consider complaints where a court has become involved, and despite Researching Reform explaining in previous posts that the ombudsman is powerless to investigate such complaints, this has not stopped parents and family members from raising their concerns with the ombudsman. The likely reason for this is that desperate families have nowhere else to turn.
Cases featured in this week’s published decisions include allegations of falsified information during child protection proceedings, failures by local authorities to comply with the Children Act, concerns about letterbox contact, children’s social work assessments, so-called evidence given in court, allegations of negligent advice by councils and data breaches, social workers’ actions which were viewed as degrading, and much, much more.
This is an extract from one of the decisions: “The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed in its support for her and her children who are in care. She complained about frequent changes of her children’s social workers, unsatisfactory communication and conditions of the contact centre for her meetings with the children. We found fault with the Council for refusing to consider Miss X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Miss X’s complaint under its children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council also agreed to provide its staff dealing with the children’s services complaints with a learning bulletin, highlighting Miss X’s experience.”
However, a large portion of the cases featured SEND provision concerns, which has been a running theme throughout the ombudsman’s complaints in recent years.
While the ombudsman acknowledges that many of the child protection complaints have to be dealt with in court, it has not yet addressed the live issue of why families continue to seek the watchdog’s help, both during and after these court proceedings.
The ombudsman therefore, would do well to seek to extend its powers so that it is able to review complaints set within family court proceedings.
Children and Education
Please note: decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available.
* Gloucestershire County Council (22 016 039)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 14-Mar-2023 Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take proper account of the complainant’s circumstances and used false information during child protection action. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.
* North Northamptonshire Council (22 015 067)Statement Upheld Other 14-Mar-2023Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint the Council has failed to comply with the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has now agreed to do so.
* Lancashire County Council (22 007 680)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 14-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that he has not been allowed contact with his two children since 2014, because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because these decisions were made by the courts. We have no discretion to consider it. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
* Warrington Council (22 015 874)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support and services the Council has provided to the complainant’s son. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now.
* Wakefield City Council (22 015 642)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about letterbox contact. This is because the complaint is late and the arrangements complained about were made in court. The matter is therefore outside our jurisdiction.
* Hartlepool Borough Council (22 016 035)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. These matters are not separable from matters Mr X has or had a right to raise during an ongoing court process. We cannot investigate matters that formed part of a court process.
* Suffolk County Council (22 016 087)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children’s social work assessment in 2021. Mr X’s concerns are best considered in the family courts.
* Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 014 944)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the actions of a social worker. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to investigate the matter now.
* Cornwall Council (22 015 640)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 10-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mrs X’s family’s data and evidence it provided to or gave in court. The matters complained are not separable from court action.
* Surrey County Council (22 016 012)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about bad advice Mr X says the Council gave him. This matter is not separable from matters that formed part of court proceedings.
* Swindon Borough Council (22 016 203)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s children. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are before the courts.
* Derbyshire County Council (22 016 225)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in connection with court proceedings, or matters the complainant could reasonably have raised in court, or which are not separable from those matters, because the law says we cannot do so.
* Kent County Council (22 015 227)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for the child concerned. Mrs X’s complaint about a data breach is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
* London Borough of Wandsworth (22 014 929)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about data sharing. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.
* London Borough of Lambeth (22 015 286)Statement Upheld Other 10-Mar-2023Summary: The Council failed to complete the actions agreed following an earlier Ombudsman investigation within the agreed timescales. The Council will pay Miss X £150 to recognise the further injustice caused to her.
* Essex County Council (22 006 917)Statement Upheld Disabled children 10-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to carry out a parent carer’s needs assessment properly. We find that the analysis in the assessment was flawed. But as the problem was remedied in a later assessment which came to the same conclusion, we could not say the fault affected the outcome. The Council has agreed to apologise and demonstrate how it has addressed problems with its complaint handling.
* Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 013 086)Statement Upheld Other 09-Mar-2023Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed in its support for her and her children who are in care. She complained about frequent changes of her children’s social workers, unsatisfactory communication and conditions of the contact centre for her meetings with the children. We found fault with the Council for refusing to consider Miss X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Miss X’s complaint under its children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council also agreed to provide its staff dealing with the children’s services complaints with a learning bulletin, highlighting Miss X’s experience.
* Staffordshire County Council (22 015 753)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the production and accuracy of a social work assessment. This is because our intervention would achieve nothing significant.
* Bracknell Forest Council (22 015 802)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s view that the complainant’s contact with his partner’s children should be supervised. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
* Kent County Council (22 015 811)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding involvement with his children. The law prevents us from considering matters considered during court proceedings.
* London Borough of Croydon (22 015 833)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not completing agreed actions after a historic complaint. The matter complained of is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. Even if that were not the case, the Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed than us to consider matters of data accuracy and disclosure.
* Buckinghamshire Council (22 015 539)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 09-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a court report and what happened in court because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.
* London Borough of Wandsworth (22 015 595)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an investigation carried out by the Council into allegations made by Mrs X’s child Y. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.
* Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 695)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council staff interviewing the complainant at her place of work and causing her to feel distressed and humiliated. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late to us outside of our usual 12-month time period for accepting complaints. And, I have seen no evidence the complainant could not have complained to us earlier.
* London Borough of Bromley (22 015 708)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of confidentiality. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matter.
* Dorset Council (22 015 543)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historic events involving the Council’s children’s services team. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant would like.
* Leeds City Council (22 010 011)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 08-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in connection with the care of the complainant’s children. This is because those actions concern matters which the Court will decide.
* Bristol City Council (22 012 520)Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 14-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not apply the correct legal test when it named two schools on an Education, Health and Care plan, with the parental choice named on the basis parents were responsible for transport costs. We have discontinued our investigation. Ms X has used a right of appeal to Tribunal about the same matter therefore the Ombudsman has no discretion to investigate.
* Kent County Council (22 015 528)Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 14-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
* Peterborough City Council (22 008 825)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Mar-2023Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he asked it to refer his son, D, for an assessment for autism. The Council was not the body responsible for making this decision. However, the Council was at fault because it did not consider a request from Mr X for an Education Health and Care needs assessment for D. This caused avoidable distress to the family, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also consider Mr X’s request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment for D without delay and issue guidance to its staff.
* Hertfordshire County Council (22 010 303)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health, and Care Plan for her daughter after an annual review, with further delay by the Council in finalising decisions for an Education Otherwise Than At School package. We have found fault by the Council with its failure to adhere to statutory timescales and deliver provision in line with its legal duty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for an apology and financial payment to remedy the injustice caused.
* East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 012 717)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s actions as they flow from a complaint about education provided in a school.
* Staffordshire County Council (22 015 692)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to carry out an assessment of a child’s special educational needs. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction.
* St Aloysius RC College (22 016 378)Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
* Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 891)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan, failed to provide any education when her daughter was out of school, and ignored her complaints. Mrs X said this caused her stress, and meant her daughter missed out on education. We find the Council at fault for failing to have proper oversight of the alternative provision, but this did not cause injustice. We find the Council at fault for failing to respond to a complaint, and this caused injustice. The Council has apologised and has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.
* Suffolk County Council (22 006 583)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Child Y a place at an appropriate school to meet his needs and delayed issuing his amended Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review in January 2022. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Child Y’s EHC plan following an annual review. The Council will pay Miss X £200 for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay. Miss X had a right of appeal to the tribunal over Child Y’s school place. The Council has already apologised to Miss X for poor communication which was appropriate.
* Suffolk County Council (22 009 178)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to secure a suitable school for her daughter, D, to attend from September 2022, and delayed putting alternative provision in place. She also complained the Council did not issue a final education, health and care plan, frustrating her right of appeal, and its communication was poor. We found the Council at fault for delays finalising D’s education, health, and care plan, and securing alternative provision. Because of the Council’s faults, D missed education and education health and care provision, and Mrs C’s rights of appeal to the SEND tribunal were frustrated.
* Cambridgeshire County Council (22 010 180)Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. We will end this investigation. Part of the complaint is late, and we cannot investigate the actions of schools or issues that have been considered by a Tribunal. The only part we could investigate relates to how the Council conducted an EHC plan annual review. However, the Council has already upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. There is nothing more that could be achieved by further investigation.
* Hartlepool Borough Council (22 012 514)Statement Not upheld School transport 10-Mar-2023Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s application for school transport. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.
* St. Thomas More RC Primary School (22 013 714)Statement Not upheld School admissions 10-Mar-2023Summary: there is no fault in the school’s decision to refuse Mr and Mrs P’s request for deferred entry to reception for their children when they start school in September 2024.
* Manchester City Council (22 015 405)Statement Upheld School transport 10-Mar-2023Summary: There was fault in the way the Council reconsidered a transport application made on the grounds of special educational needs / mobility need following a previous Ombudsman decision. This was a repeat of the previous fault and represents non-compliance with an Ombudsman remedy. The complaint is upheld. The Council will apologise, make a further remedy payment, seek further evidence (including carrying out a face-to-face assessment if necessary) and make a fresh decision.
* London Borough of Lambeth (22 008 234)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Mar-2023Summary: The Council avoidably delayed producing an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for Mr X’s child, Z. Its communication and complaint handling was also poor in this case. These faults caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X and Z. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £300 and carry out several service improvements to recognise the injustice caused.
* Birmingham City Council (22 008 408)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, F with Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan following orders from the SEND tribunal in May 2022 and delayed agreeing a personal budget. The Council was at fault. It did not have a plan to start providing F with EOTAS provision following the tribunal orders and delayed agreeing a personal budget until November 2022. It meant F did not start receiving provision until January 2023. The Council has agreed to backdate F’s personal budget payments to June 2023 and pay Ms X £500 to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble caused.
* Swindon Borough Council (22 008 980)Statement Upheld School transport 10-Mar-2023Summary: the Council was wrong to end Mrs M’s daughter G’s taxis to college at the end of the summer term in 2022. The Council should arrange taxis again and refund the money Mrs M has paid for taxis since the beginning of September.
* Surrey County Council (22 009 496)Statement Upheld Alternative provision 10-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide her son, C, with alternative provision when he was absent from school between December 2021 and June 2022. The Council failed to provide alternative provision. The Council will take action to prevent the fault reoccurring and make payments to recognise the loss of education and financial loss incurred.
* East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 010 107)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs M complains her son B did not receive adequate support when he started college in September 2021. There was a delay amending his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following the annual review in January 2022, and he did not receive any speech and language input for the whole of his first year. I have recommended a remedy for the injustice this caused.
* Cumbria County Council (22 011 736)Statement Not upheld School transport 09-Mar-2023Summary: There was no fault in how the Council made its decision on school transport provision for Miss X’s child. It did so in line with its policy and there is no evidence of fault in how it approached this decision or how it considered Miss X’s appeal.
* Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 106)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Mar-2023Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing an Education Health and Care Plan for his son, Y and was poor in communications, resulting in missed provision and distress. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it pay Mr X £300 for time and trouble; £750 for distress; £2700 for missed provision and act to prevent recurrence.
* Kent County Council (22 006 174)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Mar-2023Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with Z’s special educational needs. She said it failed carry out annual reviews and a phase transfer review. It failed to provide a suitable placement for Z and appropriate support for his transfer to, and at the placement. We have found fault by the Council in failing to properly complete the phase transfer review and carry out annual reviews over a four-year period, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and Z, making payments to acknowledge their lost opportunity to have their views and concerns considered, and reflect the uncertainty, worry and upset caused. The Council has also agreed to report back to us about the outcome of the recent annual review meeting and carry out service improvements.
* London Borough of Lambeth (22 013 520)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused the complainants request for further education for her son who has special educational needs. This is because the decision carried a right of appeal to a tribunal, which was reasonable for the complainant to have used. Furthermore, the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate it now.
* North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 640)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-Mar-2023Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Mr X’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X avoidable distress caused by the delay.
* Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 824)Statement Upheld School admissions 08-Mar-2023Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council failed to act properly when her daughter was out of education. We have found some fault by the Council in that it failed to provide alternative education and it failed to ensure its fair access panel decisions are properly recorded. This has caused an injustice to the complainant and to her daughter. We have recommended actions to remedy this, which the Council has accepted. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.
* East Sussex County Council (22 004 391)Statement Upheld School transport 08-Mar-2023Summary: Ms R complains on behalf of Miss P’s family about the transport offered by the Council for Miss P’s post-16 education. The Council did not consider relevant information about Miss P’s stepfather’s work commitments before deciding he should provide transport. The Appeal Panel’s decision is flawed because the Panel did not follow the Council’s published appeals process.
* Kent County Council (22 009 262)Statement Upheld Alternative provision 08-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council met her daughter, Z’s, educational and special educational needs. The Council was at fault for delay in carrying out the assessment for Z’s Education, Health and Care plan. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant Z was delayed in receiving provision. The Council was also at fault for failing to properly consider if it should arrange alternative provision when Z was not receiving suitable education. On balance, had it acted without fault, the Council would have put provision in place. Its failure to do so had a negative impact on Z’s development at a critical period in her education. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and Z and pay Mrs X £1700 in recognition of the injustice Z experienced.
