Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her daughter’s social worker reporting concerns to the police. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains her daughter’s social worker reporting concerns to the police. She says the social worker’s actions could have led to her being wrongly arrested and her daughter being placed into care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In September 2024, the Council received a safeguarding referral from Ms X’s daughter’s, Ms Z, college. The referral noted the disclosures Ms Z had made, including that her mother had hit her and was verbally abusive.
6. The Council considered the referral and decided it met the threshold for safeguarding enquiries. Records showed the Council spoke with both Ms Z and Ms X about the allegations. The case notes showed Ms X provided her account which explained her actions and the reasons why Ms Z may have perceived it in a certain way.
7. The Council also reported the matter to the police, who visited Ms X and Ms Z. Following the visit, the police confirmed to the Council no criminal investigation was needed, and no further action would be taken. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained it reported the matter to the police as its safeguarding adults policy states that the police should be notified if a serious crime has been, or is likely to have been, committed. The Council said Ms Z had reported being physically assaulted, which was a serious crime.
8. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because a council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. In this case, the Council had received clear information which suggested Ms Z may be at risk of abuse or neglect. It was therefore appropriate for the Council to start safeguarding enquiries to gather information to help it decide if further action was necessary to safeguard Ms Z. The case records showed the safeguarding enquiries proceeded without any delay and the Council closed the case in a timely manner.
9. Further, the Council’s decision to report the matter to the police was in line with its policy. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the decision despite Ms X disagreeing with the approach.
10. Finally, an investigation is also not proportionate because the claimed injustice is not significant enough. Ms X said the social worker’s actions in reporting the matter to the police could have led to her being arrested and her daughter being taken into care. However, this is not what happened. We cannot remedy potential injustice, only actual injustice caused by the actions complained about.
11. I acknowledge the situation will have caused Ms X some distress. However, this is not above and beyond the level of distress that is to be expected during a safeguarding intervention.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman