Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refer the complainant to Social Work England. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the decision was taken.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr K, says that the Council maliciously and unjustly referred him to Social Work England (SWE), alleging exploitation of vulnerable clients.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr K’s representative, and I have sent a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr K owns an agency which provides advice and support to vulnerable clients. Allegations were made to the Council that Mr K, through his agency, was exploiting and financially abusing clients.
6. The Council considered the allegations and decided to refer Mr K to SWE. Mr K complained about the decision.
7. The Council told him that it has a responsibility to report relevant concerns to SWE. It said that the triggers for referral were met, and that the officer followed the Council’s policy correctly.
8. Mr K has now complained to the LGSCO, but we will not investigate the complaint. This is because we cannot consider the merits of a decision that has been properly taken by the Council.
9. In this case, the allegations made are covered by SWE’s list of triggers which should be referred to it. The Council must take action in these circumstances, and it has confirmed that the officer correctly checked her understanding before making the referral.
10. Consequently there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. We will not look at the substance of the evidence the officer considered, as that is now a matter for SWE to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. Subject to any comments Mr K might make, my view is we should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way that the Council made its decision to refer him to SWE.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman