'Radicalised child' concerns not dealt with as council failed to call concerned parent back

In late 2022 and 2023, child A’s parent, referred to as Z, and school had concerns about their beliefs and the language used.

Z shared concerns with the school during several meetings. Two days later, the council received a prevent referral about the child and a counter terrorism officer discussed it with a social worker, referred to as officer 1.

Over the telephone, Z expressed concerns about child A and support services were discussed. Officer 1 explained to Z they would have to wait for an update on the prevent referral and would call in a week.

However, the officer did not call Z back. Z called the council twice and spoke to another officer. Z said child A had been excluded from school because of their escalating behaviour and would return the following week.

Z said that support could have stopped the exclusion. The council officer said a senior officer would look at the case and call Z back, although no timescale was given. Following multi-agency involvement, including the police, it was decided the child was vulnerable and would benefit from early help.

Two weeks later and over the school summer holiday, officer 1 made a referral to the school to complete an early help assessment for child A.

At the start of the next academic year, Z complained to the council about lack of communication and support, saying they had not heard from them for more than eight weeks. The following month, the council spoke to Z and said it had referred child A’s concerns back to the school.

Z did not receive a stage one response by the extension date the council had promised, so the complaint was escalated to stage two.

The council emailed and spoke to the school, who did not have any radicalisation concerns about child A, but would undertake an early help assessment. The council told the school it would contact a specialist child exploitation team to review if further support could be provided.

Z emailed the council several times and complained they had not provided an update since the phone call earlier in the month. The council chased updates from the school and the specialist child exploitation team and agreed to consider the complaint.

In late 2023, the council responded and apologised for the delays and proposed a series of recommendations to improve the process. It apologised for a no stage one response and offered a remedy payment of £100 for Z’s time and trouble chasing the complaint response, and £100 for the delay in receiving it. Z remained unhappy and contacted the LGO.

In response to the LGO’s enquiries, the council provided evidence it had reminded relevant staff to carry out the recommendations.

“The council accepts there was evidence of poor communication when its officers promised updates and call backs,” said the LGO.

“The council acknowledges that was not always carried out and caused Z frustration and time and trouble.

“The council has already made service improvements and shown evidence it has reminded relevant staff of these improvements.

“This is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Z. No further recommendations were needed.”

The LGO added that the council failed to deal with Z’s stage one complaint in line with its policy and failed to provide a response, meaning it was at fault. The £200 payment to acknowledge any injustice this caused was appropriate, the LGO said, and it was up to Z to contact the council if they wish to accept it.

The LGO said the council issued its stage two response within the maximum 65 working days which was in line with its complaint policy.

A Telford & Wrekin Council spokesperson said: “We accept the Local Government Ombudsman’s decision which recognises the authority has already put in place improvements to specific customer processes in response to this complaint.

“The LGO recognises that we have already apologised and is satisfied that the complaint has been remedied.”