Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 617)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 11-Mar-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council has been at fault during its involvement with her niece. This is because the matters have been considered in court.

West Sussex County Council (19 017 762)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2020

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council is dealing with his child’s case. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because it relates to court proceedings, which are ongoing. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns as part of those proceedings.

Lancashire County Council (19 009 020)

Statement Not upheld Child protection 09-Mar-2020

Summary: Mr E complains the involvement of Council social services led to him having less contact with his daughter and that it provided him poor customer service. We have completed this investigation finding no fault by the Council or else that we cannot add to the replies it has given to Mr E’s complaint.

London Borough of Southwark (19 012 229)

Statement Upheld Child protection 09-Mar-2020

Summary: The Council failed to consider Mr X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council should arrange to do so without delay and pay Mr X £500 to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble and distress this caused him.

Northamptonshire County Council (18 004 926)

Statement Upheld Child protection 09-Mar-2020

Summary: the Council failed to fully include Mr B when considering a child protection case, delayed providing him with reports and minutes, failed to keep adequate case recordings, failed to comply with contact orders and delayed responding to his complaint. This left Mr B feeling he had not been treated fairly and impartially and undermined his confidence in the Council, as well as leading to him to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. The actions the Council has taken to address the procedural issues, completion of the outstanding action in relation to a social worker and an apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Southend-on-Sea City Council (19 017 150)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his children’s case. We will not investigate this complaint for several reasons. We already considered parts of it in 2017, and it is now too late for us to investigate other issues from the period before the Council began court proceedings. We cannot consider the proceedings and issues linked to them. More recent events form a small part of the complaint, and it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a different outcome.

North East Lincolnshire Council (19 017 846)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaints that the Council made representations about him in court and that the judge failed to verify the accusations against him. Mr A’s complaints are about what happened in court and the Ombudsman cannot investigate court proceedings.

West Sussex County Council (19 018 677)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to contact between the complainant and his children. This is because the matters complained of have been considered by a court. The Ombudsman will not exercise its discretion to investigate a complaint about Council inaction prior to the court case. This is because the complaint was made late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Milton Keynes Council (19 017 399)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 05-Mar-2020

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council wrongly sharing confidential information. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices.

London Borough of Bexley (19 005 836)

Statement Not upheld Child protection 04-Mar-2020

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal of her request for a specific respite care placement. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions about what respite to offer.