Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker contacting his GP practice in response to an anonymous call raising concerns about his mental health. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by us could add to the response already provided by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains a social worker contacted his GP practice in response to an anonymous call raising concerns about Mr X’s mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents Mr X provided. This included the complaint correspondence with the Council. I sent Mr X a draft of my decision and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X complains that in late 2020, a social worker emailed his GP practice, suggesting Mr X might need help in relation to his mental health. This was in response to an anonymous phone call the social worker received, stating Mr X was acting out of character and presenting with signs of mental illness.
7. The GP phoned Mr X to follow up on this and Mr X confirmed he did not need any psychiatric help. No further action was taken or required. Mr X complained the social worker should not have been involved because Mr X complained about him in 2018 and he feels he may not be impartial.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said the social worker had acted in Mr X’s best interests in contacting his GP in response to the concerns raised. The social worker considered it was appropriate to contact the GP practice directly rather than Mr X because he did not want to cause him any unnecessary distress by making direct contact. Because it was a mental health crisis and safeguarding issue that had been raised the Council considered this approach appropriate.
9. The Council said it found no reason to suggest the social worker should not be involved in matters relating to Mr X following his previous complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation of this matter. The Council has explained why Mr X’s GP was contacted and why the social worker decided this was the suitable course of action. There is nothing more we could add. This was a matter of professional judgement for the officer to decide and we cannot, by law, question the merits of these types of decisions where there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman