Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council has failed to remove from files information about her child she considers the evidence did not support; and to address the behaviour of a social worker she says visited unannounced, tried to force entry, and would not leave when asked to. We cannot achieve more in the first part of the complaint than the Council has already, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Ms B injustice in the second part, so an investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council has:
1. Failed to remove from a file and from assessments about her child information she considers the evidence did not support; and
2. Failed to address the behaviour of a social worker she says visited unannounced, tried to force entry, and would not leave when asked to.

Ms B wants the information removed from records, and for the Council to change her child’s social worker and the arrangements for their 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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different result, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered what Ms B said in her complaints and the Council’s responses to them. I have also given Ms B an opportunity to comment on a draft before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

File information

4. Ms B first complained to the Ombudsman about the information she wants removed from her child’s records and assessments in October 2018. We asked the Council to reply to the complaint because it had not had a reasonable chance to do so. In its reply the Council said it had received the information from a third party, but it was clear Ms B had been able to comment on the information and have her comments included in the assessments it had carried out. Ms B’s views on the matter were therefore on the record and the Council had considered them.
5. Even if the Ombudsman investigated this part of Ms B’s complaint, we could not achieve more for her than the Council has already. This is because we would not ask the Council to remove information from a file just because someone disagrees with it. The Council received the information so it must stay on file even if Ms B disagrees with it; the most the Ombudsman would seek would be for the Council to add a note of her views to the file, but in this case they are already on record.

Social worker visit

6. Ms B first complained to the Ombudsman about the matters in part b) of paragraph 1 of this statement in July 2019. We passed the matter to the Council to consider because it had not had a reasonable chance to do so.
7. The Council says it had replied to the complaint in April 2019 but asked Ms B to provide further information to support her request for further investigation at
   stage 2 of its complaint procedures. It had written to her on 13 and 21 May 2019, but she had not answered its questions so it could not progress the complaint.
8. In November 2018 the Council had agreed to provide a 52 week per year educational and residential place for Ms B’s child, who has complex needs. As there is no court order allowing the Council to accommodate the child away from their parent, the law says there must be a voluntary agreement for it to do so under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
9. The Council says it sent Ms B a form of agreement to sign on 7 January 2019, called her a week later, and emailed her two weeks after that, but she did not respond or return the agreement. It says it sent a further copy of the agreement for signature on 7 February 2019, followed up with a telephone call, and emailed her on 18 February 2019, all without success.
10. The Council therefore explained a social worker whom Ms B had known for at least 18 months visited her home a few weeks later to seek completion of the agreement the Council needed by law. The Council’s account of the visit is different to Ms B’s, but as the Ombudsman was not there we cannot know precisely what happened. The Council wrote to Ms B a few weeks later to confirm it had received the signed agreement under section 20 so could lawfully continue to provide her child with the services they need.
11. Ms B has protested about the timing and manner of the social worker’s visit, but from the information I have there was enough justification for the Council to call on her when other attempts to complete a necessary legal formality had failed.
12. Nor would I criticise the Council for not progressing this part of her complaint further, because there is no evidence she has provided answers to the questions it asked so it could be clear about her complaint. Even if she did, however, I cannot see the matter has caused Ms B enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman investigating it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve more in the first part of the complaint than the Council has already, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Ms B injustice in the second part, so an investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman