Ombudsman says council processed Prevent referral correctly but was at fault over communication with parent

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has found that Telford & Wrekin Council showed poor communication and complaint handling when dealing with concerns that a child had been radicalised online.

The child’s parent told the Ombudsman that the council failed to safeguard their child, (child A), and did not respond to a safeguarding referral made by Child A’s school, leaving them without support.

Outlining the background to the case, the LGSCO noted that Child A attended School 1. In late 2022 and 2023, Child A’s parent, Z, and School 1 had concerns about Child A’s beliefs, language used and were concerned Child A had been radicalised online.

Later in 2023, School 1 submitted a ‘Prevent’ referral to the council about Child A.

Two days after the council received the Prevent referral about Child A, a Counter Terrorism officer discussed the referral with a council social worker, Officer 1.

Counter Terrorism said it and the Police would review the case. It agreed Officer 1 would talk to Child A’s parents about the Prevent referral.

Officer 1 spoke to Z on the telephone, and explained they would have to wait for an update on the Prevent referral, and would call Z back in a week.

Officer 1 did not call Z back. Z called the council twice.

The report stated: “Officer 1 was not available and Z spoke to another Council officer. Z said Child A had been excluded from School 1 because of their escalating behaviour and would return to School 1 the following week. Z said support could have stopped the exclusion.”

Following multi-agency involvement, including the police, it was decided the child was vulnerable and would benefit from early help.

However, from that point, Z claimed there was still a lack of communication from the council.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that the council processed the Prevent referral in line with government guidance and was not at fault.

However, the council was at fault for “poor communication” and delayed stage 1 complaints handling which caused Z “frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble”.

The council accepted there was evidence of poor communication when its officers promised updates and call backs.

The report noted: “The Council failed to deal with Z's stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy. It failed to provide a stage 1 response, that was fault.”

The council offered Z £200 to acknowledge any injustice caused.

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.”

Lottie Winson