Complaint 2 - unlawful s47 practices

The Council has been forced to admit liability and pay damages for an unlawful s47 inquiry but FAC remain concerned that

(i) the Complaints Team initially attempted to deny there was any problem and did not uphold the complaint

(ii) the complaint was processed under the wrong complaint track with the result that the complainant has been denied the right to a Stage 3 independent hearing and the Council has therefore avoided any outside scrutiny of its unlawful practices which are likely to have affected hundreds of families.

The text of the complaint correspondence is reproduced below redacted to protect the family and child.

Formal complaint: Unlawful commencement of a section 47 investigation. Violation of Article 8, Human Rights Act 1998. Unlawful data gathering (accessing Childs GP records without consent or statutory gateway).

To provide redress for family:

Formal letter quashing the purported section 47 enquiry decision and provide declaration that there never was a section 47 enquiry decision.

All references to Family having been subject to a section 47 enquiry are removed from all data bases, all appropriate persons notified of this.

A payment of £2,929. 

Review significantly flawed document, “Right Help Right Time”.

Background

Following  an unfortunate incident (one that many loving families of good standing have experienced)  we found our selves attending Herefordshire Hospital, paediatric A&E with teenage daughter. We were very grateful for the medical help given, the overnight stay in the paediatric ward and the medical discharge at 9am by the nurse in charge of ward.

But senior staff became insistent that before leaving, “as was our right”, we allowed Local Authority Services to become engaged with our family. From media reports we were broadly aware of Herefordshires LA Children's services historic inadequacies and were sincerely fearful of engaging with the services.

So we said “Thank You For Your Concern But No Thank You” we had our own resources and existing private professional help with which we could address this unfortunate happening. We left the hospital “as was our lawful right” but the Paediatric Consultant made  a safeguarding referral  (MARF Level 4) stating that we had taken a child away against medical advice.

It is my honestly held belief that LA Childrens Services were so outraged that we had dared to turn our backs upon their system that they decided we were to be taught a lesson by “being punished by the procedure” of a Section 47 safeguarding investigation.

They promptly commenced this but fortunately, with the help of knowledgeable friends, we were just articulate enough to challenge the Social Workers actions and get the investigation closed just before they moved it on to a Child Protection Conference.

So “We Saw The Buggers Off” but a most distressing experience for any family. It doesn't matter how big a man you are, if your family is being threatened by Herefordshire Childrens Services, then you will lay awake at 3am with tears in your eyes.

I was outraged by what had been done and was convinced they had not followed procedures, possibly acting unlawfully. So started educating myself to achieve some form of redress and fair dealing.

Evidence to Support Formal Complaint

Having gathered information through Subject Access Requests, Freedom of information Requests, Legal opinion and information about Case Law and Legal Precedent and by asking public questions at Herefordshire Council Meetings. I believed I had sufficient evidence to support a Formal Complaint about the abuses and failings inflicted upon my family by Herefordshire Councils action.

The formal complaint was guided by Public Question 2, Audit and Governance Committee Meeting, 29 October 2024 and the response from Chairperson (Councillor David Hitchiner).

PQ2: I understand that Councils operate under statuary duties, for example something like, the childrens act 1989 provides the supporting framework. 

But it is legal precedence, established from case law that determines lawful procedure that a council must follow when implementing individual elements. 

For example something like initiating and conducting a Section 47 enquiry under the childrens act 1989. 

If a member of the public and service user had honestly held, and well evidenced, concerns that the council was disregarding case law and dismissing concerns when raised. 

How should that person “whistleblow” and present their evidence so that it will not be instantly dismissed?

Response: ...if a member of the public is concerned about how the council is performing or whether it is complying with its statutory duties, then this would amount to a complaint and would be considered under either the council’s general (Corporate) complaints policy or the Children’s Representations and Complaints Policy & Procedure…

In the hypothetical example provided in your question, then the Council’s complaints team would receive the concern, and it will be considered in full...In the circumstances that a complaint is not upheld, then the member of the public will have the right to refer the matter to the local government ombudsman. 

Submitting Formal Complaint

Traditional post (1st class signed for) was preferred for submitting the complaint and response was requested by post. This provided me with a paper trail, proof of receipt at Plough Lane, formal printed letter is more difficult to dismiss, change or part delete.

As the correspondence was not digital I have created pdf’s of scans of each set of pages so that they can be downloaded and viewed by those whom are interested. It is hoped they will provide a resource for other families that wish to submit similar complaints.

Link to Formal Complaint Submitted 23 April 2025 (PDF)

First Response by email:

Dear [father]

Thank you for your time on the telephone today where I confirmed receipt of your complaint. As we discussed, the investigating officer would like to meet with you to discuss, establish and agree the complaint points. This meeting has now been provisionally booked for Thursday 8 May at 1.30 pm at Blueschool House in Hereford.  Ground floor - GIS Room 7 as agreed. 

Once we have clarified these complaints points with you, we will progress your complaint further and I will formally acknowledge you and provide your response timescale. As discussed, this matter would fall under the corporate complaints policy.

Kind regards

Christine Dallow, Corporate Support, Complaints and LGSCO Link Officer

Now I am happy to acknowledge that Christine Dallow gave us fair dealing in all our interactions. But she is not the investigating officer or their controller. Friends had advised that anecdotal evidence suggested the councils modus operandi was to use this initial meeting to intimidate/dissuade or twist the truth spoken by the complainant. So best to have a record made and be accompanied by a knowledgeable friend.

Second Response email:

Dear [father]

Thank you for your email confirming you can attend the meeting…

Your meeting will be with Lydia Richardson, Quality Assurance Practitioner and Tilly Page Complaints and Childrens Rights Manager and should take about an hour.  

I have also arranged for a note-taker to attend as your request for audio recording has been declined. (you kindly advised me in our telephone conversation last week that this would be acceptable if you could not audio record). Please be assured we will provide you with a copy of these notes once written up.

Can you please kindly confirm the name of your friend who will be attending to support you?

Kind regards, Christine

Now Tilly Page is Complaints and Children’s Rights Manager and many a family who have had dealings believe she administers the complaints department as her personal fiefdom.

Lydia Richardson, Quality Assurance Practitioner, part of job description:

implement our vision of "doing our very best for Herefordshire children and young people and their families". So what could possibly go wrong with fair dealing?

Third Response email:

Good morning [father]

Mr Philip Smart is not recognised by the Local Authority as someone who can support people making complaints against the Local Authority and as such I am not permitting his attendance at today’s meeting.

Kind regards, Tilly Page, Complaints and Children’s Rights Manager

Now what is this “not permitting” because Local Government Ombudsman code  3.6:

Organisations should give individuals the opportunity to have a suitable representative deal with their complaint on their behalf, and to be represented or accompanied at any meeting with the organisation. https://www.lgo.org.uk/information-centre/information-for-organisations-we-investigate/complaint-handling-code/complaint-handling-code?chapter=4

My reply to Tilly Page:

Hello Tilly Page and Lydia Richardson, Quality Assurance Practitioner

Mr Philip Smart is a personal friend of mine who has a much wider knowledge of Council procedures than I do. This is why I  would find his attendance helpful.

I do not believe there is a legitimate reason to prohibit Mr Philip Smart, personal friend. I believe the Quality Assurance Practitioner has a duty “hearing the voice of children, young people and parents/carers” (C&YP Scrutiny Committee, 17th Sept 2024). Mr Philip Smart, personal friend, would have assisted me in providing this.

I wish to attend the meeting in good faith but putting barriers in the way of my attendance. Leads me to believe you are not acting in good faith.

Kind regards, [father]

What happened was… 

We left home, in good faith,  as a family just after 12.15pm to arrive in good time at Blueschool House for our 1.30pm meeting, Ref: 3.17 The Complaints Team will send a written acknowledgement to the complainant normally within 5 workingdays of receipt into the council. The Complaints Team, if they deem it to be necessary and appropriate, may also offer to discuss the complaint over the telephone or in person, to identify and agree the points for investigation and the complainant’s desired outcomes. Where complaints involve a simple investigation and response, the acknowledgement letter from the Complaints Team will outline the proposed action and this will be the complaint handling plan. The Complaints Team will then appoint an investigating...

(in person, to identify and agree the points for investigation and the complainant’s desired outcomes.)

We were accompanied by Mr Philip Smart, a personal friend of the family, who has a much wider knowledge of Council procedures than I do. I  would find his attendance helpful and this is in line with: https://www.lgo.org.uk/information-centre/information-for-organisations-we-investigate/complaint-handling-code/complaint-handling-code?chapter=4

3.6  Organisations should give individuals the opportunity to have a suitable representative deal with their complaint on their behalf, and to be represented or accompanied at any meeting with the organisation.

We were told that they were not permitting his attendance at today’s meeting and the meeting was cancelled. We wished to attend the meeting in good faith but putting barriers in the way of our attendance. Leads us to believe you are not acting in good faith.

So that being as it is:

It provided the opportunity to place documents formally into the hands of the council to help identify and agree the points for investigation;

This was very kindly done for us at Blueschool House reception by placing them into your internal courier service, in provided envelope, addressed to Lydia Richardson, Quality Assurance Practitioner. Recorded with time and date stamp photograph.

The documents were:

Full log entry, Title: S47 Joint Visit With Social Worker, Contact date: 18/06/2024 at 14:00, Entered by Tammie Hardisty

Full log entry, Title: S47 Visit completed, Contact date: 18/06/2024 at 16:00, Entered by Daisy Ferdinand.

Full printed copy of Judgement: AB & Anor, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWHC 416 (Admin) (13 March 2013), Before HH Judge Anthony Thornton. This I reference for Case Law and Legal Precedent.

Screenshot of: https://westmids-herefordshire.trixonline.co.uk/ Herefordshire Safeguarding Children Partnership Manual.

Printed links to: https://westmids-herefordshire.trixonline.co.uk/chapter/assessment and printed copy of proper processes from MARF referral to S47 Visit by Social Workers.

So to identify and agree the points for investigation;

I Believe Unlawful commencement of a section 47 investigation. Violation of Article 8, Human Rights Act 1998.

Unlawful data gathering. All happened during S47 Joint Visit With Social Worker as detailed in Full log entry, Title: S47 Joint Visit With Social Worker, Contact date: 18/06/2024 at 14:00 and Full log entry, Title: S47 Visit completed, Contact date: 18/06/2024 at 16:00.

So the investigating officer only needs to look at these two, full log entry, plus the proper processes or lack of them that allowed it to happen.

Any other actions after the time line of 18/06/2024 at 16:00. would simply be continuing Violation of Article 8, Human Rights Act 1998 and therefore beyond the scope of my formal complaint points for investigation.

Also the investigating officer only needs to look at: Significantly flawed Safeguarding Document, “Right Help Right Time” for possible explanation of why it happened.

I believe my 13 page formal complaint contains all other necessary information and the complainant’s desired outcomes.

So would the QA Assurance Officer and Tilly Page take the complaint forward in its original format.

Please allocate reference number for case records and send letter of confirmation.

Kind Regards, [father]

Stage one Corporate Complaints Response from Lydia Richardson:

Link to: Stage One Complaints Response 21 May 2025 (PDF)

It is my honestly held belief that a controlling hand had directed Lydia Richardson, the investigating officer, to believe that the issues of complaint had been investigated and addressed many months ago and therefore she was unable to comment further.

Again anecdotal evidence suggested that, misdirecting to a previous complaint element, partially addressing a second element and then completely ignoring all other issues is a standard modus operandi for Herefordshire Councils Childrens complaints.

So I promptly responded by post:

You completely failed to address our formal complaint concern in any meaningful way:

formal complaint concern “Unlawful commencement of section 47 investigation”  Proper process not undertaken: Social Worker Assessment (meeting with parents, seeing the child, parents consent to seek school/GP data) must happen before Strategy Discussion and determining need for S47 enquiry.

For the avoidance of doubt we emailed (copy attached) to identify and agree the points for investigation;

“I Believe Unlawful commencement of a section 47 investigation. Violation of Article 8, Human Rights Act 1998, Unlawful data gathering. 

All happened during S47 Joint Visit With Social Worker as detailed in Full log entry, Title: S47 Joint Visit With Social Worker, Contact date: 18/06/2024 at 14:00 and Full log entry, Title: S47 Visit completed, Contact date: 18/06/2024 at 16:00.

So the investigating officer only needs to look at these two, full log entry, plus the proper processes or lack of them that allowed it to happen.

Any other actions after the time line of 18/06/2024 at 16:00. would simply be continuing Violation of Article 8, Human Rights Act 1998 and therefore beyond the scope of my formal complaint points for investigation.”

You have acknowledged that you have been supplied with full copies of all documents required. So either address complaint CCMPT12025/00821 as submitted or if unwilling to do so, state this in writing and I will freely proceed to the next steps. I expect this to be completed within 10 working days.

Stage two Corporate Complaint Review Response from Sophie Roberts:

Link to: Stage Two Complaints Response 18 June 2025 (PDF)

Complaint Upheld, we beat the buggers!

We acknowledge that Sophie Roberts Complaint Review of 18/6/2025 was Fair Dealing.

The finding of “Complaint 1 is Upheld” we acknowledge as satisfactory.

“formal complaint concern “Unlawful commencement of section 47 investigation”  Proper process not undertaken: Social Worker Assessment (meeting with parents, seeing the child, parents consent to seek school/GP data) must happen before Strategy Discussion and determining need for S47 enquiry.”

Complaint 2, the finding “I can confirm I agree the correct  process was not followed.” we acknowledge as satisfactory.

We are heartened that document “Right Help Right Time”  is now undergoing review process.

Your offered “a payment has been agreed for the sum of £2929.00” 

we acknowledge as satisfactory.

But the real pot of gold for us as a family is:

Sophie Roberts confirmation, offered outcome of “remove all references to your family having been subject to a section 47 enquiry from all data bases and that all appropriate persons will be notified”. 

We acknowledge as satisfactory.

Illegitimi non carborundum