Sheffield Council fined for allowing child in care to stay up all night gaming
and live on Freeview channel 276
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the council at fault for failing to fully address the concerns of the father of a girl in their care.
The council agreed to pay £500 in remedies to the child, known only as Child P in the Ombudsman’s report, in recognition to the distress caused to her by their failure to provide support.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad
The Ombudsman found the council failed to address the issue of the girl’s compulsion to gaming after her father complained.
He was concerned she was being allowed to access games consoles overnight and wasn’t getting enough sleep.
And he complained that staff in the care placement had allowed his daughter access to their computer login details to play computer games.
The council investigated and upheld the father’s complaints that his daughter was experiencing issues with gaming, but did not make it clear in its complaints procedure what support Child P would be accessing and when.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe Ombudsman found the council failed to provide the statutory visits from a support worker to Child P, with the report saying the council acknowledged there had been occasions “where a support worker has recorded seeing Child P when visits had not happened”, though this was in part due to Covid-19 and Child P refusing telephone and video visits.
The Ombudsman said: “Regardless of Child P refusing online visits, the council had a statutory duty to visit and provide support to Child P. By failing to carry out the visits but recording that some visits were done, the council has failed provide Child P with the support she should have been receiving.”
The council also agreed to pay Mr S £300 in recognition of the distress caused to him and the time and trouble taken to pursue the complaint.
The Ombudsman found the council acknowledged Mr S had not been kept up to date with the health developments of Child P, but failed to consider the impact this had on Mr S in their handling of his complaint.