Further Updates

I now have an open letter about my case published, giving a much fuller version of the problems that I have encountered in Derby City Council. To read this click here.

In brief my complaints and concerns are (1) that the Fostering and Adoption part of the former Derby Social Services failed to follow proper procedure in refusing to continue assessing my application to become a foster carer; (2) that the Fostering and Adoption part of Derby's former Social Services seriously misrepresented the facts, and attempted to hide the real reason for non-acceptance of my application by falsely making out that the reasons were contained in confidential references from three of my personal referees; (3) that Katie Harris (the Head of the Fostering and Adoption team) has shown herself unfit for her post due to her obstruction and breaking of Data Protection Law; (4) that Alison Jones (Derby City Council's Data Protection Officer) has shown herself unfit for her post due to her breaking of Data Protection Law, and that she still fails to provide me with requested information; (5) that the former Social Services of Derby City Council hold inaccurate information on me and refuse to correct it, in spite of having the errors pointed out to them; (6) that Derby City Council grossly mishandled my complaint and failed to follow correct complaints procedure, in particular that they continue to refuse me my right to a hearing before an Independent Review Panel.

In a letter of June the 27th 2006, Mr Michael Foote (the Deputy Chief Executive) says that Derby City Council cannot carry out parallel or subsequent investigations into my complaint. However, the Ombudsman’s Investigator Miss Hilary Clarke made it clear in a letter to Mr Ray Cowlishaw (the Chief Executive of Derby City Council) dated April the 5th 2006 that the Ombudsman’s office is not pursuing all the aspects of my complaint.

Specifically, the Ombudsman is not investigating any of the first four aspects enumerated above. The fifth aspect (i.e. the refusal to correct inaccurate records) is not resolved, as the Ombudsman’s investigator has thus far failed to pursue the matter properly. The sixth aspect has been confirmed as a valid complaint by both the Council and the Ombudsman’s office, but the Ombudsman is not pursuing the matter of my right to a hearing before an Independent Review Panel.

Background to case

My case started in 2004 when the former Social Services (now Children and Young People’s Services) attached to Derby City Council informed me that they would not proceed any further with my application to become a foster carer of children in care. They said that they had received adverse references, and that as they were confidential they could not disclose any more information than that. The information which I had received in connection with my application had advised me to ask for the reasons for not pursuing my application if I got turned down, so I wrote requesting more information. Katie Harris, head of the Fostering and Adoption team of Derby former Social Services (now Children and Young People's Services), insisted that they could not give me any more information as the reasons were contained in confidential references that had been given for me. I did not believe this, so I requested a copy of the records held on me under the Data Protection Act. The authorities took far longer than the permitted forty days to provide them. They then started to give different, and rather contradictory reasons, as to why they had turned down my application, presumably because they realised that my legal representatives and I could now see that my confidential references had been far from adverse. Derby former Social Services (now the Children and Young People's Services) also refused to correct erroneous records, while acknowledging that they were erroneous.

In fact, I have a rather complicated case against them, and Derby City Council looked into it and questioned people at the former Social Services (now the Children and Young People's Services), but most of my points were not answered at all satisfactorily. My case has now gone to the Ombudsman (in York). Initially their investigator reckoned that I had a case as regards (a) the fact that Derby City Council's records do not show a full picture; (b) the fact that Derby City Council delayed unreasonably in providing me with access to their files; and (c) the fact that Derby City Council took an unreasonably long time to respond to my complaint and failed to explain to me the difference between the Former Social Services and the Corporate complaints procedure. However, the Ombudsman's Investigator said that they could do nothing about the actual decision not to proceed with assessing me as a prospective foster carer, as the former Social Services (now Children and Young People's Services) apparently has the discretion to turn people down. An additional related complaint is that it appears that the former Social Services (now Children and Young People's Services) seriously misrepresented the facts, and attempted to hide the real reason for non-acceptance of my application by falsely making out that the reasons were contained in confidential references from three of my personal referees. They were insistent that for this reason (i.e. that they were confidential at the request of my referees) they could not tell me any more, but after my referees had agreed to disclose the references, the former Social Services (now Children and Young People's Services) started to make other excuses. The Ombudsman appears to be dismissive of this complaint, and won't investigate it. It sounds to me as if Derby City Council's former Social Services deliberately tried to mislead me as to the reasons for not pursuing my application, not to say lied! This could have created discord between me and personal acquaintances who had been kind enough to give me references, and whom the former Social Services (now Children and Young People's Services) claimed had given me adverse references.

When I sent in a complaint about how I had been treated to the former Social Services last year, the former Social Services advised me to go to an Ombudsman but DIDN'T tell me how to get an Independent Review, which their own complaints procedure said I was entitled to. It now appears, therefore, that I have been deprived of this opportunity. I originally applied to the Ombudsman regarding this case in October 2005, but they apparently asked Derby City Council Corporate Executive whether they had looked at the case and were told that they had not, so they passed it onto the Derby City Council Corporate Executive to look at. However, I am now told that when a case has been before the Corporate Executive (as opposed to the former Social Services itself) I do not have the option of an Independent Review. It appears that my case has been very mishandled. Even regarding the parts of my complaint that the Ombudsman IS supposed to look into, the Investigator is failing to do it properly. Derby City Council has offered amendments to erroneous records, but they are not satisfactory amendments, as they still do not reveal the full picture. The Ombudsman was supposed to be asking Derby City Council to amend records further, but it now turns out that they just asked Derby City Council what they were doing to implement the SUGGESTED UNSATISFACTORY amendments.

An example of an inaccurate record relates to the fact that in 2003 Derby City Council former Social Services placed a child with me for one night. This incident arose when I was interviewed with a view to becoming a foster carer (not of this child), in 2004. I told them that I had had this child placed with me for one night, and I could see my brownie points going up as the social worker took notes. I suppose they saw it as suggesting that I was or might be suitable to foster. However, when I got the logs (under Data Protection Law) I found that what was logged was that it had been CONTEMPLATED to leave a child with me and that in the end this did not happen. The relevance of the child having stayed is shown by the fact that the Social Workers in the Fostering Unit TWICE tried to contact the relevant Social Worker in the Reception Unit, to do with this child, to ask them about it. Why ask twice, if it is irrelevant? However, they conveniently do not say in their log what this social worker answered as to the question of the child having stayed with me, instead logging negative comments that this social worker made about me (because I had complained to the Head of Derby former Social Services about ineptitude of social workers concerning a particular case).

When Derby City Council looked into this matter, they so kindly agreed to amend the record to say that it had been contemplated to leave a child with me … full stop. Deleting "but in the end this did not happen". When I mentioned this to the Ombudsman's investigator on the telephone, she volunteered the comment that this sounded to her as if the child had NOT stayed with me. My point exactly. Presumably the fact that he did is logged in HIS case records, so it is too risky for them to say that he didn't, but they don't want to admit that he did. If they ARE trying to deny it completely, why agree to amend the record at all? If they are not purposely putting less than the full truth into my records, why do they OBJECT to saying that he actually did stay?


MORE TO FOLLOW...