Bucks Council ordered to pay for causing distress to dad whose child was put in care

The authority was found to be ‘at fault’ for not processing his complaint about the evidence it used to justify welfare concerns for his child.

It claimed the complaint was similar to a previous one he made about the council’s handling of a safeguarding referral from his child’s school.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which investigates complaints against local authorities, recommended the council compensate and apologise to the father, known only as Mr B.

It also said the council should remind its staff to properly consider whether new complaints are different to previous ones and to investigate and respond within the correct timescales.

Joseph Baum, the council’s deputy cabinet member for education and children’s services, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “We apologise to Mr B and fully accept the findings of the Ombudsman that the council should have better managed his second complaint about our services and treated it as a newly raised issue.

“We have sent him a written apology and have reviewed our practices to ensure staff managing any complaint fully consider whether a new complaint is different to previous or ongoing complaints from a complainant.”

Mr B originally complained to the council in 2021 about how it handled safeguarding concerns from his child’s school.

He alleged there were delays, a ‘poor standard of social work’, a lack of supervision of the social worker, and inaccuracies in a child and family assessment.

However, the council did not complete its investigation, under the ‘children’s statutory complaints process’ until November 2023, which resulted in it apologising to Mr B.

In June 2023, the father lodged a new complaint with the council over a new child and family assessment completed by a different social worker, which he claimed contained ‘fabricated, inaccurate’ conclusions.

He also complained about the behaviour of the council’s children services team and its threats of legal proceedings to take his child into care, as well as the incident in which his child was taken into care in early 2023, which he alleged was a result of ‘poor practice and manipulation of evidence’.

Mr B chased the council for a response to his June 2023 complaint in February 2024, once his other complaint had been dealt with.

But a week later, the council told him the issues he raised had been considered in his first complaint and so it would not investigate his second one.

The Ombudsman said there were ‘several distinguishable issues’ not covered by Mr B’s first complaint, which may have caused him and his family ‘further injustice’. The Ombudsman said: “However, Mr B’s June 2023 complaint contains several distinguishable issues which was not covered in the initial children’s statutory complaint process, including the new child and family assessment and the incident and subsequent actions in early 2023. These issues, if upheld, also mean Mr B and his family may have experienced further injustice which has therefore not been remedied.”

Their decision read: “I have therefore found the council at fault for its failure to accept and respond to Mr B’s June 2023 complaint.

“I am satisfied this has caused him some distress and uncertainty due to the significantly delayed opportunity to have his concerns investigated and responded to within the timescales required.”