Mrs B, an adult who was previously looked after by Bristol City Council, complained in 2014 about the Council’s investigation into historic abuse she suffered at home, neglect at the foster placement and the Council’s failure to work with the policy allegations of sexual abuse. The LGO found that there was fault in the way the Council investigated allegations of historic abuse. However, the LGO did not find fault in the Council’s decision not interview the Guardian in its investigation of the complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms B within for its failure to properly investigate the referrals relating to Ms C, its delay in taking action and its failure to properly address the allegations of sexual abuse. The Council paid £1,000 to Ms B for its failures in its investigations of Ms C and £200 to Ms B for its failures in relation to the sexual abuse allegations. The Council agreed to pay a further £800 to Ms B to reflect the injustice suffered as a result of the Council’s failure to properly respond to the sexual abuse allegations.
This was a complaint against London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The LGO found that there was an unfocused investigation from the outset which was poorly recorded and that there was minimal communication between the Council and Ms G while the investigation continued. The various failings by the Council caused injustice for Ms G. The LGO stated that anyone who is the subject of any child protection investigation was likely to experience distress. That was unavoidable and not the fault of the Council if it was to safeguard children effectively. But the Council compounded that inevitable distress through the manner of its investigation. Ms G remained largely in the dark about what the Council was doing or why. The Council failed to support Ms G with her parenting. The Council added further distress through sending an unacceptable letter to Mr K. Finally, the poor communications and delays in complaint handling in this case also caused Ms G unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The Council agreed to provide a further apology to Ms G and pay Ms G £750 broken down as follows: £250 was for the distress caused by the poor communications and recording during the child protection investigation; £250 was for the distress caused by the inappropriate letter sent to Mr K; £250 was to reflect Ms G’s time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
Mr X complained against Coventry City Council. Mr X complained of failings by the Council’s children’s services department that led the Council to restrict contact he had with his children for a period of time. The LGO found that there was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council offered a personal remedy to Mr X and £750 in compensation.
The LGO found that Wiltshire Council was at fault in providing child protection services to Ms X and her family, which caused them injustice. The Council agreed to increase the financial redress it had paid to recognise the injustice resulting from the procedural failures in the service they received. In particular, the errors involving inappropriate data sharing were serious and caused distress to Ms X and her family. In recognition of their injustice, and that financial redress the Council agreed to pay Ms X a further £400 and Ms X’s two eldest children £210 each.
The LGO considered a claim against Kingston upon Hull City Council. The complainant alleges that Kingston upon Hull City Council (the Council) failed to carry out a proper child protection investigation. There are some faults by the Council causing the complainant avoidable distress. The Council agreed to:
clarify the date of School Y’s child protection referral;
amend its S20 Consent Form;
seek some timescales from their partner agency, the Police, concerning their criminal investigations so as to avoid drift and delay in making decisions about a child’s living arrangements;
pay Ms Z as a family foster carer;
apologise, in writing, for its failure to let Ms X know that she could have withdrawn her consent at any time under the S20 agreement; and
make a payment of £250 for the avoidable distress caused to Ms X by the Council’s accepted errors.
Malcolm Johnson E: firstname.lastname@example.org
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. This website is produced for the assistance of advocates submitting complaints to local authorities and other organisations. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.