By Charlotte Webster-
Dudley council shamefully disregarded its responsibilities to abide by Human Rights Law when they infringed upon uphold a woman’s right to private life by entering her home without the legal basis to do so, following safeguarding concerns, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.
Social workers from the council used a key safe to enter the woman’s property, without informing her beforehand. They wanted to speak to her alone to investigate concerns raised about her son. Both the woman’s identity and that of her son, has been withheld for legal reasons.
Professional guidance on powers of entry in safeguarding cases requires practitioners to use negotiation and persuasion first to gain access to individuals.
In doing so, Dudley Council breached the vulnerable woman’s wishes, caused her distress, and failed to take account of its responsibilities under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to uphold her rights to private and family life.
Dudley has accepted the ombudsman’s judgment, and agreed to apologise and pay her a mere £100 for the distress caused. The council has also agreed to provide advice to all relevant staff to ensure individual wishes and relevant guidance are considered when making decisions about how safeguarding enquiries should be carried out.
A manager from the council agreed that, if the authority wanted to make contact with the woman, it would make initial arrangements through her son.
Dudley Council said safeguarding concerns from the woman’s carers about the man which were referred to the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH)led to them ignoring the arrangements before seeking to speak to her. The council argued it would have increased the risk to her or the potential for coercion or duress.
The council joins a list of irresponsible councils that has failed to conduct its affairs legally and professionally
Illegal Entry
CCTV revealed that the council visited the woman at home alone and gained entry using the key safe outside her house, for which it already held the access code, without ringing the doorbell or knocking first. Internal emails showed that it considered she wouldn’t be able to get to the door.
The council said there was already agreement for its home care staff to use the key safe. But the ombudsman said this did not extend to other council staff and also that Dudley had not considered alternative legal means to gain entry.
Dudley Council noted the aggrieved woman previously expressed wishes in the case notes and said it would need to consider them further after a strategy meeting, but the ombudsman found no evidence indicating the council did this.
The ombudsman report pointed to a 2014 government-commissioned guidance from the Social Care Institute for Excellence on gaining access to adults at risk of abuse or neglect, which states that, where councils cannot gain access, it should seek to resolve the situation through negotiation and building trust, before resorting to legal powers.
Dudley Council claimed to have entered the house to attempt to negotiate consent to speak to her about the safeguarding concern, neglecting SCIE guidance that negotiation with the person had to be pursued before gaining access and not afterwards and the council had already entered Mrs C’s house without consent before it spoke to her to ‘negotiate’.
Human Rights Breach
The Ombudsman confirmed the woman’s privacy was breached and she suffered distress.
“[The council] appears to have had no regard for its responsibilities and considerations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Nicolas Barlow, cabinet member for health and adult social care at Dudley council, said: “Dudley council accepts the finding of the ombudsman and would like to re-iterate our apology[to the woman] ”
“The council has provided updated guidance to staff to ensure individual wishes are taken into account in S42 safeguarding enquiries and also to ensure decisions and the supporting rationale for safeguarding investigations are fully documented.
“The council acted in good faith to respond to a number of safeguarding concerns and had no intention to disregard Mrs C’s wishes.
“Accurate record keeping and reviewing case histories are a key facet of effective safeguarding and appropriate steps have been taken to make the necessary improvements and all of the Ombudsman’s requirements have been adhered to.