Council at fault for failing to inform man of section 47 investigation and poor record keeping, Ombudsman finds

The man, Mr X, complained that the council did not inform him an investigation was taking place, and did not ask him for his views on the allegations.

Mr X’s child (child A) has complex needs and is subject to a Child in Need plan. He has an allocated social worker.

In January 2025, an allegation was made against Mr X to his employer by a family member. The allegation was that Mr X had caused harm to child A.

Mr X worked with children. Mr X’s employer submitted a multi-agency referral form that day. Mr X reported himself to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), who manages and oversees allegations made against people who work with children in the council’s area.

The council held a strategy discussion on the same day. This was attended by the LADO and the police.

The council subsequently decided to begin a section 47 investigation and undertake enquiries. Mr X’s employer informed him the LADO and the police had both decided to take no further action.

The Ombudsman said the council arranged a home visit with Mr X, and said it notified him of the s47 investigation over the phone. However, Mr X disputes this.

At the end of January, the council recorded the outcome of the s47 investigation as "concerns substantiated".

It said this was because, although unclear about the motive of the family member who had made the allegation, the allegation was also corroborated by child A’s sibling. It decided to continue the Child in Need (CiN) process for child A.

It stated that it did not need to escalate to child protection as child A was not in Mr X’s care. It said family time between Mr X and child A would need to be carefully managed.

The council completed the Child and Family Assessment in February. It asked relevant family members about the allegations and recorded their views.

Mr X submitted a stage one complaint to the council in May. He said the council had not notified him at any point that it was conducting a s47 investigation concerning the allegations made against him. He also said he was not informed about the outcome of the investigation, and that he had only become aware a s47 investigation had taken place when his employer had notified him that month.

The council issued its response in mid-June. It said it understood that Mr X had been updated about the progress of the s47 investigation through telephone calls with the social worker and a home visit in February. It said this concluded with an updated Child and Family Assessment, about which he was notified.

The council accepted however that it might not have notified him of the overall s47 investigation. It apologised for this. However, it said it remained content with its decision to find the allegations substantiated.

Mr X remained unhappy so requested the council escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.

The council issued its second complaint response in mid-August. It said it had reviewed its file and spoken to a senior social worker. It confirmed the Child and Family Assessment, and the visit to Mr X’s home address in February, had been part of the s47 investigation. It accepted that there was no reference to the s47 investigation in either the assessment or meeting. It apologised and said it should have made Mr X aware of this.

Considering Mr X’s complaint, the Ombudsman said: “The council accepted in its complaint response that it did not refer to the s47 investigation in either the Child and Family Assessment or the home visit and that, overall, Mr X was not aware a s47 investigation was taking place. It acknowledges this is fault.

“The council’s own process sets out that parents will be 'engaged as appropriate' with the s47 process. Statutory guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’ also states that parents must be informed unless doing so will put the child at risk of harm. There is no evidence the council considered this to be the case. The council’s assessment shows that it did not consider any risk to child A to be ‘live’ as he was not living with Mr X and at the time there was no contact between them.”

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman found the council’s record keeping was poor, which was fault.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused;
• Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the council’s fault;
• Remind relevant staff that parents must be informed of a s47 investigation unless doing so would put a child at risk of harm. Where a decision is made not to inform a parent, the reason must be recorded.
• Review how it records key actions in s47 cases. This should include whether it has notified relevant parties.

A Milton Keynes City Council spokesperson said: “We accept the Ombudsman’s findings and have begun work on the corresponding actions.”

Lottie Winson