Summary: Mr B says the Council coerced him into providing a social worker with a copy of a Cafcass report, gave his partner false information about him and failed to deal with his complaint properly. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• coerced him into providing a social worker with a copy of a Cafcass report which was not relevant to the issues being dealt with and threatened to end his relationship with his partner if he did not comply;
• gave his partner false information about him which led to her ending the relationship; and
• failed to deal with his complaint properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. The Pan-Dorset Safeguarding policy (the policy) sets out how a Council will handle a safeguarding investigation. The policy says when the local authority receives a referral and identifies that a child maybe suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the local authority is required by Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries.
8. The policy says the resulting assessment must include both parents, any other carers such as grandparents and the partners of the parents.
9. The Government has issued guidance: Getting the Best from Complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others. This lists who may complain under the children’s complaints procedure:
• any child or young person (or a parent of his or someone who has parental responsibility for him) who is being looked after by the local authority or is not looked after by them but is in need;
• any local authority foster carer (including those caring for children placed through independent fostering agencies);
• children leaving care;
• Special Guardians;
• a child or young person (or parent of his) to whom a Special Guardian order is in force;
• any person who has applied for an assessment under section 14F(3) or (4);
• any child or young person who may be adopted, their parents and guardians;
• persons wishing to adopt a child;
• any other person whom arrangements for the provision of adoption services extend;
• adopted persons, their parents, natural parents and former guardians; and
• such other person as the local authority consider has sufficient interest in the child or young person’s welfare to warrant his representations being considered by them.

What happened

10. Mr B was in a relationship in 2017 with a woman I will refer to as D. D had a child and was pregnant with another child at the time. D later gave birth to a child which is not Mr B’s child.
11. The Council became involved due to safeguarding issues in relation to one of D’s children. Mr B was not part of the safeguarding concern but the Council had to obtain information about Mr B as one of the people in the child’s life. That involvement revealed information about criminal convictions and an allegation made in 2015. The social worker discussed those concerns with Mr B and encouraged him to speak to D about the concerns because the social worker would be referring to them in her assessment. Mr B later confirmed he had spoken to D about his history. The social worker completed an assessment which referred to Mr B’s criminal history and the allegation made against him. The assessment made clear the allegations were unfounded and his criminal history was some time previously. The assessment recorded no concerns about Mr B’s contact with D’s children.
12. D subsequently split from Mr B. Mr B says D split from him due to wrong information the Council gave her about his past. Mr B put in a complaint about those concerns. The Council dealt with the complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. The Council apologised for including incorrect information in the stage one complaint response.

Analysis

13. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints about matters which happened more than 12 months ago. In this case the concerns Mr B has about the actions of the social worker relate to December 2017, which is more than 12 months before his complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the complaint because I am satisfied Mr B was not aware of the information given to D until 2019 and complained within 12 months of obtaining that information.
14. Mr B says the Council’s social worker coerced him into providing her with a copy of a Cafcass report relating to his children which was not relevant to the issues the social worker was investigating. Mr B also says the social worker threatened to end his relationship with D if he did not comply. The Ombudsman has to rely on the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence does not show any threat from the social worker to Mr B about what she would do if he did not provide the Cafcass report. Instead, the only reference to the report recorded in the documentary evidence I have seen is when the social worker discussed with Mr B the information she had about his police record. The note of that discussion records Mr B told the social worker he was waiting for a transcript following family court proceedings which he was happy to share with the social worker. As the documentary records do not show the social worker coerced Mr B into providing a copy of the Cafcass report or that she made any threats to Mr B I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
15. Mr B says the Council gave D false information about him which led to her ending the relationship. Mr B says the Council wrongly told D he had sexually abused his children when he had not and that he had a criminal history of theft when that was not accurate. Again, I have to rely on the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence shows the social worker discussed with Mr B what his police record showed. There is no evidence though the social worker shared details of the allegations and criminal record with D at that stage. Rather, the documentary records show the social worker encouraged Mr B to share those details with D as the social worker would be referring to them in the assessment she was completing. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B’s criminal history was only a matter the social worker discussed with D once Mr B had confirmed he had discussed the issues with D. I cannot criticise the Council for that. Nor can I criticise the Council for relying on information it received about Mr B’s criminal history. As there is no written record of what the social worker discussed with D though I cannot confirm what information the social worker provided about Mr B’s history.
16. I am, however, satisfied in completing the assessment report the social worker provided some context to Mr B’s history of offending, as well as the allegation made against him in 2015. The assessment refers to Mr B’s criminal history. However, it also makes clear most of the matters are more than 10 years old. The assessment makes clear the allegation made in 2015 received no further action by the police due to concerns the mother of the children had coerced them into making the allegation. Given the context provided in the assessment I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, this is the type of information the social worker verbally gave to D. I cannot criticise the Council for relying on the information it obtained about Mr B’s history from third parties. If Mr B has concerns about third parties providing inaccurate information he will need to address those concerns to those bodies. For the actions of the Council in this case though I am satisfied the assessment provided the relevant context to Mr B’s history and there is nothing in that assessment which raises concerns about Mr B having contact with D’s children. As I have found no fault either in how the Council communicated with D about Mr B’s past or how it recorded that information in the assessment I have no grounds to criticise it.
17. Mr B is concerned the Council did not use D’s learning disability worker to explain his history to her. As I said earlier though, the documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the social worker did not discuss Mr B’s history with D until after Mr B had confirmed he had shared the information. I have seen nothing in the documentary evidence to suggest D raised concerns about the information relating to Mr B’s past which would have warranted the involvement of the learning disability worker. I would, in any event, have expected the social worker to use her own skills when presenting the information to D.
18. Mr B says the Council failed to deal with his complaint properly. Mr B says the Council should have used the children’s complaints process rather than the corporate process. I refer in paragraph 9 to the guidance on who can complain under the children’s complaints process. As Mr B was not the father or guardian of the children involved in this case he did not fall within the definition of someone for whom the children’s services complaints procedure applies. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for considering his complaint under its corporate complaints procedure.
19. Mr B also raises concerns the Council included wrong information in its response to his stage one complaint. The Council accepts it wrongly referred to Mr B as the father of one of the children when he is not. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for that. I have seen no evidence of further inaccuracies in the Council’s response to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman