Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report the Council submitted to a mental health tribunal. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the PA complains the Council:
• Included false information in a report about him; and
• made a racist remark, threatening to have him deported.
2. He said the matter has caused him significant distress. He wanted the Council to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint relates to a social circumstances report. The Council submitted the report to a mental health tribunal as part of Mr X’s appeal of his detention under the Mental Health Act.
7. Mr X complained the social worker who completed the report had told his family he was having auditory and visual hallucinations. The Council explained in its response to his complaint it had not told the family this, and said it had included in its report Mr X’s statement that he had not had any such hallucinations.
8. I have seen the report. The record of the social worker’s conversations with Mr X and his family is in line with the Council’s explanation in its complaint response. The report also does not make any reference to Mr X’s race or immigration status. We could not come to sound conclusions about any verbal conversations.
9. It is for the tribunal, not the Ombudsman, to decide what weight to give to the reports it receives. We cannot assess Mr X’s mental health, and we could not say whether certain statements within the report are true or false. The Ombudsman does not have any influence over the decision of a mental health tribunal.
10. If we investigated Mr X’s complaint, it is also unlikely we would recommend any service improvements, as Mr X seeks. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman