Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions relating to safeguarding procedures for his daughter. We should not investigate this complaint because the Council has accepted fault and offered a remedy to Mr X, and it has also made service improvements. It is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s treatment of him and his daughter. His concerns included the Council’s actions relating to court proceedings, and it having not allowed him to visit his daughter in hospital.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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 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

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
5. I also considered information the Council provided, which included complaints correspondence.
6. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council is involved in Mr X’s daughter’s case due to concerns about her welfare. It applied to court to begin care proceedings, which were ongoing when Mr X complained to us in early 2019. The Council had refused to investigate his complaint while those proceedings were ongoing.
8. Much of Mr X’s complaint was about the Council’s actions relating to the court proceedings. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints about incorrect information being included in documents used in court proceedings, and documents going missing leading to protracted proceedings. Events from the time of proceedings are inextricably linked to the proceedings, and we cannot investigate them. Much of the injustice Mr X complained he had experienced is linked to the court case. We cannot consider injustice such as Mr X’s court costs, the time and trouble of attending court proceedings and distress linked to the court case.
9. Mr X’s complaint included an event that is separable from those court proceedings, which I have considered separately below.
10. Mr X’s daughter was admitted to hospital in 2018. The social worker did not allow Mr X to visit his daughter and told him the police had made this decision. After its later complaint investigation, the Council accepted it had made an error and Mr X should not have been prevented from visiting his daughter.
11. Mr X did not see his daughter for between three and four weeks. This caused him distress. The investigating officer for the complaint made several recommendations for service improvements. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain what it would do following those recommendations. It also apologised and offered a financial remedy of £300 to Mr X, to recognise the injustice its fault had caused.
12. This is within the range we would likely recommend as a token payment to remedy Mr X’s distress, considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It is unlikely, if we investigated Mr X’s complaint, that we would recommend a significantly different remedy. In coming to this decision, I have considered the impact of the error around hospital visits only. Care proceedings are naturally distressing. We must be clear to separate distress from identified fault within our jurisdiction, from natural distress occurring due to care proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Council has provided a remedy within the range of what we would usually recommend, to recognise the injustice caused by fault that falls within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman