Miss N's complaint about the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
Jump to
The disclosure by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service of Miss N’s home address to her ex-husband led to her and her daughter feeling unsafe in their home and, ultimately, moving house. They made matters worse by failing to acknowledge the full impact this had on Miss N until we intervened.
Background
In the summer of 2006 the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) inadvertently disclosed Miss N’s address to her ex-husband. After she complained to CAFCASS, they apologised to her for the disclosure and the ‘considerable distress’ they had caused her. Miss N responded, emphasising how distressing the disclosure had been for her and her family, and adding that it had been made clear to CAFCASS from the beginning that her address was to be kept confidential.
Correspondence continued between CAFCASS and Miss N into August 2006 and, in September, CAFCASS told Miss N that they were going to re-open her complaint and offer her a meeting to discuss her concerns. Having re-opened the complaint in October, CAFCASS spoke to Miss N, noting that she was planning to move house because they had disclosed her address, and that she wanted compensation for that. The proposed meeting took place in November, during which Miss N asked CAFCASS for help with the costs of moving and recompense for the distress they had caused her.
On 9 February 2007 CAFCASS wrote to Miss N about her request. They said that there were no court orders, before late 2006, prohibiting the disclosure of her address. They confirmed that they had disclosed her address, but said they were not aware that she had tried to minimise the risks she believed she was under. CAFCASS also suggested the risk to her was not as great as she thought. They told Miss N that they had concluded that she did not need to move house because, during the November 2006 meeting, Miss N had described making alternative after-school arrangements for her daughter, and asking a friend to stay in her house during a holiday to provide her with some security and reassurance. CAFCASS concluded that their disclosure had not resulted in any added financial commitment for Miss N and they declined to help with her moving costs.
Miss N told her Member of Parliament that CAFCASS were not taking her complaint seriously. She said that she wanted to move house as a result of CAFCASS’s error but she had not been able to find anywhere suitable because of her daughter’s schooling (her daughter was about to sit exams and had health problems) and because of her difficult financial situation. Miss N said she had applied for a non-molestation order against her ex-husband in 2005. She said CAFCASS had noted in three separate reports that she had asked them to keep her address confidential, and that her ex-husband had not been caught at her current address because he did not want to jeopardise his ongoing case for permission to see his daughter.
The Member of Parliament wrote to CAFCASS in March 2007. After sending several holding letters, CAFCASS sent a substantive reply to Miss N in June. They apologised for causing Miss N distress and said they regretted giving her the impression that they had not taken her concerns seriously. CAFCASS told Miss N that they had a domestic violence policy and they should have carried out a more thorough risk assessment of her case. CAFCASS apologised for not taking proper account of Miss N’s fears for her safety and said that, given that their disclosure had increased her sense of vulnerability, they were willing to pay ‘reasonable moving costs associated with the transportation of her household belongings to new accommodation’. Their offer was valid until 1 July 2008, and the costs of the move were to be agreed in advance.
Miss N wrote to the Member of Parliament saying she wanted to pursue her claim for all the costs associated with moving house and for compensation for the distress caused. She said that she had had to move house a number of times since her divorce and that arranging another move was stressful and disruptive. Miss N said that, since CAFCASS had disclosed her address, her ex-husband had been seen outside her house several times, and that she believed other incidents were attributable to him.
Miss N and CAFCASS continued to exchange correspondence about compensation, ending with a letter from CAFCASS in March 2008 in which they told Miss N that their offer of June 2007 still stood and that they were unable to make a further offer. The Member of Parliament then referred Miss N’s complaint to the Ombudsman. Miss N and her daughter finally moved to a new address in May 2008.
What we investigated
As CAFCASS accepted that they were at fault for disclosing Miss N’s address, our investigation focused on their consideration of her compensation claim, and on their handling of
her complaint.
Miss N told us that CAFCASS’s error had caused her and her daughter a great deal of distress, anxiety and inconvenience, and that her ex-husband’s appearances had strained her relationship with her then partner. She wanted CAFCASS to meet all of the costs of her move (which she put at between £1,500 and £2,000), and to compensate her for distress and inconvenience. She also wanted CAFCASS to review their complaints procedure.
What our investigation found
CAFCASS did not act in line with the Principle of ‘Putting things right’ once they were alerted to their error. Instead of acknowledging it quickly and considering how to put right any injustice to Miss N, they tried to close her complaint without really considering the injustice to her. They also refused to consider the non-financial aspects of her claim, despite acknowledging that she had suffered ‘considerable distress’. Even when we put the complaint to them, CAFCASS initially said they would consider compensating Miss N for inconvenience and distress only if she provided proof of how their maladministration had affected her. That was not a customer focused response; it was already clear that their error had been very distressing for Miss N. CAFCASS also did not adhere to the timescales set out in their complaints procedure, taking ten months to even consider awarding Miss N any kind of financial redress.
Taken together, the shortcomings in CAFCASS’s handling of Miss N’s case were sufficiently serious as to be maladministrative.
Consequences
But for the disclosure of Miss N’s address, she would not have felt the need to move and would not have incurred the costs of doing so. CAFCASS also caused Miss N significant distress and inconvenience over a long period, while their repeated refusal to consider compensation for that meant she entered into a protracted process to obtain appropriate redress, which ultimately led to her complaining to the Ombudsman.
We upheld Miss N’s complaint.
Resolution
CAFCASS told us that there were lessons to be learnt from Miss N’s complaint. They described actions they had taken to tighten procedures, which included: carrying out an extra check when filing a case with the courts to ensure that documents from external sources do not reveal a confidential address; ensuring that all reports prepared for the courts are quality assured by a senior member of staff; and giving staff more guidance and training on identifying and dealing with domestic violence issues. CAFCASS also told us about their new complaints procedure (effective from January 2009), the final stage of which involved an independent panel reviewing CAFCASS’s handling of the case and looking at how they had dealt with the complaint. This all showed an appreciation of the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Complaint Handling, and the importance of using feedback from complaints to improve service design and delivery.
CAFCASS also agreed to make any payment to Miss N that we considered reasonable.
We recommended the following:
- a senior officer from CAFCASS should write to Miss N to apologise for the maladministration identified and for its impact on her; and
- CAFCASS should pay Miss N £1,000 in recognition of her removal and related costs, and a further £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience they caused her.
CAFCASS agreed to implement our recommendations.
