10. In its complaint responses, Cafcass acknowledges its error in closing the case, explaining it had mistakenly thought the second application was a duplicate. Cafcass says that as the second application would need the court to consider combining the two applications, its error had no negative impact on the overall time frame of the case.
11. We can see that Cafcass wrote to Mr L in November 2022 to give a timeline of events from when it got his first application, to the date of the letter. This timeline clearly shows when it got Mr L’s second application from court on 9 August 2022. The letter explained it had closed the file because it thought the application was a duplicate of the existing application, as it had received the second with a duplicate of the first application.
12. The timeline shows that Mr L contacted Cafcass at least four times between mid-October and early November, and he had been directed to the courts as Cafcass was unable to find the second application. On 9 November, Cafcass contacted Mr L to say it had found the application, it apologised for the error and allocated the application to an FCA. The timeline noted that a safeguarding letter was to be filed by 3 January 2023 and a Gatekeeping hearing listed for 9 January.
13. The letter went on to offer an apology, acknowledge the frustration caused and to note that the two applications would need to be looked at by the court. The letter also advised that Cafcass’ recommendation for the court would be for a Section 7 report from the local authority.
14. After Mr L’s formal complaint in February, Cafcass sent another response repeating its apologies and the explanation of why it felt the error had not caused a big delay. It went on to say that the safeguarding letters filed with the court were appropriate and in the best interests of Mr L’s son.
15. We can see from the timeline that a First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA) had been listed for the first application on 20 February 2023. We asked Mr L if, as the first letter from Cafcass had suggested, the two applications had been combined. He confirmed this was the case and had been decided by the court at the FHDRA. Mr L also told us this was not relevant as his second application had been urgent and he believed consideration of the second application was only delayed until the hearing for the first application, due to Cafcass’ error.
16. We can see that Cafcass has already accepted it made errors in closing the case on receipt of the second application and not identifying that error when Mr L contacted it. We have no doubt that this was a cause of upset and frustration for Mr L as he was worried about his son’s wellbeing.
17. We can see that there was a three-month period when no action was taken on the second application due to it being closed incorrectly. The court had ordered safeguarding to be filed with the court by 20 September and this did not happen until 15 December. We know that both applications were considered by the court and combined at the FHDRA on 20 February 2023.
18. We looked at our Principles of Good Administration which say:
‘Putting things right When mistakes happen, public bodies should acknowledge them, apologise, explain what went wrong and put things right quickly and effectively.’
19. We can see that, although Mr L had to contact Cafcass many times before it corrected the issue, it acknowledged its error, explained what had gone wrong and apologised. We have decided that Cafcass acted in line with our Principles once it found its error.
20. We have considered whether we would be able to say the court could have considered the application earlier if Cafcass had not made this mistake. We have decided that we could not say this. We do know the family courts deal with high volumes of applications, which can take many months to be heard, and available times for hearings are based on the number of applications it has to deal with at any given time. We would not be able to say with any certainty that the application would be classed as urgent by the court. The two applications being combined suggests that neither application was considered more urgent than the other and it would be likely that the court would have combined the cases regardless of the error.
21. We appreciate that Mr L was caused upset and frustration as a result of Cafcass’ error and we recognise his concerns are important to him. We also understand that the time when Mr L kept contacting Cafcass and it told him to contact the court would have added to the frustration and upset.
22. We can see that Cafcass provided an explanation, acknowledgment of the impact on Mr L and an apology. We decided this was not enough to put right the delay Mr L faced. Mr L faced a delay of three months before the second application error was identified by Cafcass. We looked at our scale of injustice, which says:
‘Level 2 (£100 - £450) Emotional Distress, worry, annoyance and similar injustice of the sort which a healthy adult would be expected to deal with on a regular basis, without external support, and which does not impact on the affected person’s day to day functioning, or their ability to live a normal life; for a period from 1-2 weeks to about six months. We would reasonably expect any impact to diminish completely in the fullness of time. Shorter periods of more serious distress.’
23. We asked Cafcass to pay Mr L £150 and it has agreed. We think this puts things right and we will not be taking further action.