TOWN hall bosses have been ordered to apologise to the owners of a nursery after social workers referred them to Ofsted without telling them.
As a result of this referral, the Wigan Borough nursery, named as 'Setting A' in a report, was subjected to an unannounced inspection.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman was critical of Wigan Council over its ‘lack of transparency’ and told the authority to apologise to Miss E and Ms F over their failure to update them as professionals when they were supporting children in the care of the local authority – known as ‘looked after children’.
The nursery owners also claimed that a council officer’s communication was ‘rude and aggressive’, but the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found there was no evidence to support this.
In addition, Miss E and Ms F also complained that the council maliciously reported the nursery to Ofsted inspectors.
However, the Ombudsman found that although the council did report the nursery to Ofsted there was no evidence it was done maliciously.
READ > Bus route that is ‘transforming’ a Leigh town should be extended
Parental responsibility
Child B and their sibling were placed in Miss E and Ms F’s facility under the Children Act 1989 under which local authorities have the power to take parental responsibility for children.
In the report, the Ombudsman said that after Child B was placed in their care Miss E and Ms F provided the council with an update on how Child B was settling in the following month.
The council organised a looked-after child (LAC) review meeting for Child B and their sibling. It did not invite Miss E or Ms F to the meeting, something else the Ombudsman was critical of.
LAC reviews oversee the care plan, the child’s progress and decide any necessary changes.
A court hearing took place to consider where the children should live. Miss E and Ms F attended the hearing. The judge decided to remove the children from their parents, but Child B stopped attending the nursery.
Apologies over communication
Council officer B had a telephone conversation with Ms F and Miss E, and Ms F complained to the Council the following day.
“They said Officer B’s communication was unprofessional, rude and aggressive,” the Obudmans report said. “They also said the council had failed to communicate with them as professionals.”
Then another child, Child C, who the council was safeguarding, started attending the nursery before Ofsted carried out an unannounced inspection over suspicions it was not carrying its regulatory requirements.
“When Miss E and Ms F complained, the council responded by apologising if they found Officer B’s communication unprofessional and upsetting,” the Ombudsman continued. “It said this was not her intention. It also apologised for not responding to some of their contact in a timely manner.
“It said Officer B did not intend to cause any distress, but it apologised if any of the conversations with her appeared rude/upsetting. It said it failed to invite them to the LAC review meeting due to an oversight, and there was little recorded evidence of communication with them when Child B was attending Setting A. It apologised for this.”
The report continued: “I have looked at the available records of Officer B’s communication with Miss E and Ms F. I have seen no evidence she was rude, aggressive or unprofessional. However, I note that the council has repeatedly apologised to them if any conversations with Officer B appeared to be rude/upsetting.”
Recognition for greater transparency
The Ombudsman said the council accepted that it delayed providing Miss E and Ms F with information about Child C and apologised for this.
It also apologised that it failed to invite them to the LAC review meeting for Child B and there was ‘little evidence’ it communicated with them when Child B was attending the nursery.
“I agree the council was at fault, and caused Miss E and Ms F some frustration,” the Ombudsman said. “However, the council’s apologies are satisfactory to address the injustice and it is in line with our guidance on remedies.
“The council has also confirmed it will review its procedures to ensure invitees to meeting about looked after children are carefully checked and educational venues are invited where appropriate.”
The Ombudsman said that the council had confirmed it did make a referral to Ofsted with regard to the nursery, but denied that this was done maliciously or as a result of Miss E and Ms F’s complaints.
“It is recognised that there is a need for greater transparency and staff should inform professionals when they make a referral to regulatory bodies such as Ofsted.
“I consider, based on the evidence available, it is more likely than not the council made the referral to Ofsted because of its genuine safeguarding concerns and not because of any malicious intent, or because it received a complaint.”
The Ombudsman ordered that the council apologise to Miss E and Ms F for the injustice caused by its failure to be open and transparent with them about the Ofsted referral and to issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the need to be open and transparent with professionals when they make a referral to a regulatory body.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel