Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in 2022 when it decided one of Miss X’s children should no longer live with her. The principal injustice flowing from the Council’s actions concerns the decision that the child should live away from Miss X’s care, confirmed by court orders. We cannot investigate matters related to that decision as a legal bar prevents us considering any matter subject to or closely connected with court action. Any intentional reduction in contact time would be a matter where Miss x had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use. There is not enough fault causing injustice caused by the Council’s actions in the remaining matters, or likelihood of reaching a robust view, to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council’s attitude and manner had been appalling, and there was still no accountability for taxis sent to her home in error to collect her child who was no longer living there. She said disability, confidentiality and safeguarding were all still issues.

Miss X’s complaint to the Council involved six points. She said:

1. It had failed to involve her in the care planning process;
2. Contact with her child was not as regular as planned, and there were problems with the arrangements;
3. An incorrect name had been used in an assessment;
4. Taxis continued to arrive to collect her child after he had left her care;
5. She was not told what had happened in a meeting she could not attend; and
6. A family member of a social worker had been posting on social media about the case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I have seen the complaint correspondence for all three stages of the statutory process for dealing with children’s complaints that councils must follow. This shows that the key issues giving rise to the complaint and causing any potential injustice to Miss X concern the Council’s decision that Miss X’s child should no longer live with her. It shows there were two court orders in 2022 and 2023 concerning who should care for the child. Complaint a) is not separable from that decision, which was subject to court action. We cannot investigate this matter.
10. The first part of complaint b) relates to a possible disagreement about the amount of contact with her child. Only a court could specify what the contact arrangements should be, so it would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her right to go to court to seek or enforce contact arrangements.
11. The second part of complaint b), as well as complaints c), d), e) and f) are separable from matters subject to court action.
12. However, there is not enough injustice flowing from fault in the second part of complaint b) complaint c) complaint d) and complaint e) to warrant our involvement. I note the Council accepted there was an error in one contact session and apologised to Miss X. It also apologised for an error with a child’s name in an assessment. Were we to investigate and find fault in these matters, as well as complaints d) and e), the most we would recommend would be an apology.
13. Regarding complaint f), the chance of us finding that a person related to a social worker had posted details concerning Miss X’s family on social media is not greater than that of the Council doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the principal matters giving rise to any injustice are related to matters subject to court action that we cannot investigate, or are ones where Miss X had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use, as only a court can mandate contact arrangements.
15. There is not enough injustice flowing from the Council’s actions in the remaining matters, or likelihood of us reaching a robust view to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman