Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it conducted an assessment of Mr B’s child. It reflected the views of both the child and the parents in the assessment and amended this in light of Mr B’s comments. It took reasonable steps to get a copy of the assessment to him in good time. Its complaint handling was more complicated than necessary but this did not disadvantage Mr B or his child.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• Did not properly take into account the views of him or his son when it completed a single assessment of his son in May 2020, or the information Mr B had relayed about how anxious and upset his son had been, or that he was following the Police advice not to have contact with the mother until the assessment was complete;
• Did not communicate with him properly during the assessment period, or offer him or his son any advice or support;
• Did not provide a copy of the assessment to him and he had to make a subject access request to get this;
• Did not handle his complaint about this properly and treated it as a complaint about data and information, instead of addressing the issues he raised.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s failings he and his son were put under more pressure than was necessary, and he could not respond to requests to return the son as he did not know why the Council had decided there was no risk his son did not get the support he was entitled to.
3. Mr B says he was put to more time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the Ombudsman when the Council refused to deal with it.
4. He wants the Council to amend the assessment document and apologise to him and his son. He wants the Council to prevent this from recurring, and that the council will be more equal in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Mr B and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including its case notes and correspondence. I also considered the law and guidance. Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

8. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to local authority children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
9. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.  The assessment may result in:
• No further action;
• A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• A decision to convene a strategy meeting.
10. The Council is part of the Liverpool Safeguarding Children Partnership. Its local procedures on single assessments say:
• A single assessment is an in-depth assessment which addresses the most important aspects of the needs of the child and the capacity of the parents or carers to respond to those needs.
• The social worker (SW), in undertaking the analysis, will sift and systematically evaluate the information gathered from all sources and include, the family, the perception of other professionals, and recognise and understand what is relevant.
• The SW’s analysis should describe and address: risks, concerns, and any changes during the assessment as well as strengths identified and summarise the child's development and needs, parental capacity, and family and environmental factors.
• Anyone working with children should see and speak to the child; listen to what they say; take their views seriously; and work with them collaboratively when deciding how to support their needs. 
11. The Council’s Children’s Services Procedure Manuals also sets out how assessments should be completed. It says:
• The child should participate and contribute directly to the assessment process. The SW should work directly with the child to understand their views and wishes. The pace of the assessment needs to acknowledge the pace at which the child can contribute.
• The parents’ involvement is central to the assessment’s success. The assessment must be open and transparent with the parents.
• Possible outcomes of the assessment should be decided on by the Council, who should agree a plan of action with the child and family and the professionals involved.
• The outcome of the assessments should be discussed with the child and family and provided in written form.
12. The General Data Protection Regulations include a right for a person to have inaccurate personal data rectified. If a council rectifies information, it must also tell other organisations it had given the inaccurate information to. A council can refuse to rectify the data in certain circumstances. The person can then complain to the Information Commissioner about this.

What happened

13. On 11 May 2020, Mr B’s son, K told him that he had been touched inappropriately by another young child at his mother’s house some years ago. Mr B contacted the NSPCC and the next day, the Police attended to take his statement. Mr B says the Police told him not to contact K’s mother until an assessment had determined whether K was at risk of harm.
14. The Council’s SW visited Mr B and K on 14 May. She understood that Mr B was following advice not to have contact with K’s mother or her household, until the assessment was complete. The SW also received information from K’s GP and his school.
15. The SW spoke to K and his father. The single assessment says that K told the SW the touching happened some years ago and had stopped when he asked the other child to stop. The assessment sets out K’s worries. He was worried how his mother would react but not worried about being touched again. He said he could talk to his father and friends or school when he was worried. The assessment says he felt safe to go back to his mother’s and he will go back home but only after he has spoken to his mother on the phone. Mr B made it clear that K had been distressed from the beginning.
16. The Council visited K’s mother on 15 May. She told the SW she would speak to both children separately and make sure this never happened again. The SW gave details of a youth mental health service that might support K. K's mother said she would check whether K wanted that first.
17. The Council’s SW concluded that there was no ongoing risk. The Council’s case notes show that it telephoned Mr B on 15 May to tell him it had no concerns about K returning to his mother’s house. However, Mr B did not agree that the SW had done enough to find out what had happened and thought the SW should have visited again and should offer K support as he had been clearly distressed. Mr B told the Council he had consulted the GP as K had been so distressed and on the GP’s advice had referred K to the youth mental health service. Mr B says the SW should have done that or at least discussed it with him and K, rather than discuss it only with the mother and left him to make the referral, particularly as K had been distressed from when he first made the disclosure to Mr B.
18. The Council finished the assessment on 20 May. The Council’s case notes show it attempted to call Mr B that day to arrange for him to collect a copy of the assessment, but could not reach him. On 22 May, the SW sent a text message to Mr B asking him to collect the assessment. This was the Friday before a bank holiday weekend and so the SW suggested he collect the assessment on Tuesday 26 May.
19. Mr B called the Council’s contact centre on 22 and 23 May to ask what had happened. He was told that the case had been closed but the officer could not go into more detail without referring to the SW who was not available over the weekend. The contact centre suggested that Mr B email it to request a copy of the assessment.
20. He did this on 28 May and the Council told him to write in, or email the department that deals with Subject Access Requests. Mr B completed the online form and this prompted the Council to ask him for proof of identity and other documents.
21. However, on 29 May the Council telephoned Mr B. He explained that he had no car at that time and did not want to travel by public transport due to the COVID-19 risks. The case notes show that during the telephone conversation, the manager explained that the assessment had established that K had been touched by another child, that he asked the child to stop and the touching had stopped; that it had upset K and he needed support to deal with the emotional impact of this. The Council agreed to hand deliver the assessment to him and did so on 1 June. K returned to his mother on 6 June 2020.
22. Mr B complained to the Council about the contents of the assessment and how it had been carried out as well as the Council’s communication with him. The crux of Mr B’s complaint was that he felt the Council had not established what had happened or whether his son had been harmed, and had not offered K or the family any support. He said the assessment was not balanced and K’s mother had received a copy of it on 19 May, whereas he did not receive his copy until 1 June.
23. The Council considered that it had captured K’s views and included these in the assessment. However, it agreed to consider Mr B’s comments on the assessment and amend it. The Council amended the assessment. It added more detail about how K had made the disclosure to Mr B, and how upset K had been; it clarified that the school had given information about a previous domestic argument involving Mr B and a third party; it also added Mr B’s comments to the records so that it was clearer he was not refusing to allow K to go back to his mother’s house but that he needed the Council to complete its assessment and for K to be feeling better and speak to his mother before that could happen.
24. The Council’s case notes say it hand delivered the revised assessment to Mr B on 29 June and emailed a copy to K’s mother. Mr B complained that the Council had not included all the amendments he had asked for, but the Council decided it did not need to make further amendments to the assessment.
25. The Council has explained that it attempted to resolve the issues Mr B had raised with him quickly, but it acknowledges that this meant the complaints team were not involved in responding at an early stage. The result being that the Council was not clear itself or with Mr B at what stage of its process, the complaint had reached. However, the Council also says that it had considered that Mr B's complaint was resolved, and that despite many conversations with him, it could not establish what he felt the outstanding issues were.
26. At the beginning of July, the Council told Mr B that it could not consider further complaints because there were private legal proceedings ongoing involving the family and K, but he could resubmit his complaint once these are concluded.
27. Mr B resubmitted his complaint in September as the legal proceedings had concluded. In early October, there were email exchanges between the Council and Mr B in which the Council asked him to clarify his complaint. The Council has explained it found it difficult to establish Mr B’s outstanding issues, despite its numerous contacts with him. The Council initially told Mr B that he should complain to the Ombudsman. It then decided that Mr B’s complaint was about inaccurate information in the single assessment. It told him that it had corrected the information but if Mr B remained dissatisfied he could complain to the Information Commissioner. The Council did refer to Mr B’s concerns about poor communication and lack of support, but assumed that these had been addressed by the assessment.
28. Mr B told the Council that his complaint was wider than a data issue, it included the lack of support for him and his son, and the Council’s poor communication. The Council did not agree and Mr B complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not properly amended the assessment; that K’s voice had not been heard and the assessment had focussed on Mr B instead; the Council had not supported him or K; he had felt the Council put too much pressure on him to return K to his mother’s house before he had received the written assessment; and had not given him the opportunity to comment on the assessment before the Council closed the case; and finally, the Council had refused to investigate his complaint about this.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr B or his son?

29. The Council based its assessment on its conversations with Mr B, K, K’s mother and the school. The Council’s case notes summarise these conversations and the assessment reflects these. The amended assessment is clear about the source of different information; whether there is evidence to support it; that Mr B was following advice not to contact the child’s mother until the assessment was complete; and his views on these issues.
30. Overall, my current view is that by amending the assessment, the Council has taken sufficient action to address the issues Mr B raised. There is no basis for me to ask the Council to take further action there.
31. Mr B said the Council did not find out what had happened. However, the assessment is clear about what had happened from K’s point of view. The Council also understood that this had an impact on K, but that he was not worried it would happen again, and that both his parents were able to protect him. Mr B says the Council did not hear K’s voice, but it spoke to him and reflected what he had told the SW and Mr B in the amended assessment. In addition to the assessment, the Council explained all these points in subsequent telephone conversations with Mr B.
32. I can see that Mr B might want the Council to have agreed the outcome of the assessment with him before finalising it, but it is not required to do so. It is required to involve the parents in the assessment and to the discuss the outcome with them. The Council did this, even if Mr B did not agree with the contents of the assessment. In addition, although Mr B feels the assessment is not balanced and focusses too much on information about him, it does follow the Council’s model for single assessments and is in accordance with the guidance.
33. Mr B feels the Council should have done more to support him and K. The Council has explained that there is no need for it to provide ongoing support because Mr B made the referral to a youth mental health service, and its assessment concluded, on the information it had, that there was no need for further support.
34. I have looked at how the Council communicated with Mr B at that time and whether it failed to give him a copy of the assessment. The Council discussed the outcome of the assessment with him on 15 May, and so he knew that it had no concerns about K’s safety, that it did not intend to take any further action, and that he could return to his mother’s home. Mr B knew on 22 May that he would need to collect a copy of the assessment.
35. The contact centre’s options over the bank holiday weekend were limited. It complicated matters when Mr B understood he should make a subject access request on 28 May. However, this was resolved on 29 May when the Council arranged to deliver a copy of the assessment.
36. I can see that Mr B might want a physical copy of the assessment before he returned his son to his mother’s house, but overall, the Council made reasonable attempts to communicate with him about the assessment. It did not delay or withhold it from him.
37. I have looked at how the Council handled Mr B’s complaint to it. It has acknowledged that its initial handling was confusing. It is open to the Council to decide that it should not proceed if it will prejudice legal proceedings. When Mr B resubmitted his complaint to the Council in September 2020, it wrongly referred Mr B to the Ombudsman when we would normally expect him to exhaust the Council’s complaints procedure. However, it then attempted to clarify the exact outstanding concerns with him and concluded that this was a data request. The Council wrongly assumed that his concerns about communication and support had been resolved by the assessment, when my understanding is that they had not.
38. Mr B has explained that his complaint is wider than a data issue, and I do note that his emails from the original suspended complaint, while centred on the assessment, have the subject heading ‘lack of support, clarity and inappropriate actions to a child in distress’. However, I can see that this was not clear to the Council. In addition, Mr B was not disadvantaged by the Council referring him to the Information Commissioner, because he was able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. The impact on Mr B is further limited because there is no basis for the Council to take further action, and so he has not had to wait longer for remedial action.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. There was no maladministration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman