Date of article: 23/01/2020
Daily News of: 23/01/2020
Country:
United Kingdom
- England
Author: Local Government Ombudsmen for England
Article language: en
Sandwell council refused to let a vulnerable mother have her representative present at an important meeting – and made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about both of them during an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The mother, who was claiming asylum, lived with her son in a one bedroomed flat, provided by the council. She was being supported in her claim for asylum by a not-for-profit organisation.
The mother complained to the council about the help it was providing, including the suitability of her accommodation and the support offered to her child. She was subsequently barred from having representatives from her support organisation attend meetings with the council. On one occasion, the council threatened to call the police if the woman’s representatives did not leave the place where a meeting was being held.
When the Ombudsman investigated, the council made serious allegations about the mother and her
epresentative’s conduct. However, the council could not back up its claims or provide evidence it had started safeguarding procedures to ensure the safety of her son as a result of these allegations.
Throughout the Ombudsman’s investigation, the council made claims it could not justify or provide records or other evidence for, including that the representative organisation was motivated by financial incentives and that it sent abusive and threatening emails to the council.
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Michael King said:
“This investigation has been characterised throughout by inconsistent evidence presented by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. It has made serious and distressing claims it cannot substantiate, and yet we have seen no evidence to call into question the behaviour of either this mother or her representatives.
“Although the council now acknowledges the views expressed were those of an individual officer, throughout my investigation it presented those views as its own. I am particularly concerned the actions of the officer involved were supervised by managers and no interventions were made.
“This is not the first complaint we have upheld against the council in its dealings with this not-for-profit organisation. I now strongly urge the council to take on board the recommendations I have made to improve its services and hope it will now start to rebuild bridges with the representative’s organisation, which provides support to some of the most vulnerable people in its area.”