Summary: Mr X complains about actions the Council took to safeguard his ex-partner and child. He says it caused him financial loss and caused upset. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council ignored a court order when it helped his child’s mother remove their son and son’s belongings from his home without his knowledge. He says not all of the belongings were returned when his son was returned to his care. He also complains that the Council lied during the stage three review of his complaint and has incorrect records.
2. Mr X says this caused him financial loss. He says it upset him and both of his children, and meant his son missed two days of nursery.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. As I explain below, where a council has investigated a complaint using a statutory complaints procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless he considers that the investigation was flawed. In this case, I have investigated whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two independent investigation and stage three review panel.
4. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the part of Mr X’s complaint about incorrect records.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement.
8. I considered the relevant statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. The government published statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, which sets out a three-stage procedure that councils follow when considering certain complaints about children’s social care services.
10. At stage one of the procedure, the council considers the complaint.
11. At stage two, the council appoints an independent Investigating Officer to investigate the complaint, and an Independent Person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. The council will appoint a senior manager to adjudicate on the findings.
12. The complainant can then ask the council to convene an independent review panel. This forms the third stage of the complaints procedure. The review panel will consider the adequacy of the independent stage two investigation.
13. The review panel should make recommendations that provide practical remedies and creative solutions to difficult situations. It should identify any injustice to the complainant where complaints have been upheld and recommend appropriate remedies. The panel should also recommend service improvements for the council, if appropriate.
14. If a council has investigated a complaint under this statutory procedure, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaints unless he considers that the investigation was flawed. Instead, he will look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

What happened

15. Mr X and his ex-partner, Ms Y, have a son (B). They had been living together as a family. In March 2019, Ms Y left Mr X and took B with her because she felt they were unsafe in the home. A social worker supported Ms Y’s move to safe accommodation. B was returned to Mr X’s care a few days later.
16. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council breached B’s Child Arrangement Order (CAO) when it helped Ms Y remove B and B’s belongings from Mr X’s home without his knowledge. Mr X said not all of B’s belongings were returned when B was returned to his care.
17. In April, the Council sent its stage one response. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It acknowledged that Mr X had a CAO for B but said Ms Y also had parental responsibility, and they had lived together and shared parenting. The Council said it supported Ms Y’s move due to safeguarding concerns. It said the issue of B’s belongings was for Mr X to resolve with Ms Y.
18. Mr X asked for his complaint to be dealt with at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
19. In June, the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted her report. She did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints.
20. In July, the Council sent Mr X its adjudication and supported the IO’s findings.
21. In August, Mr X asked for a stage three review panel.
22. In September, the stage three review panel reviewed Mr X’s complaint. It partially upheld two of Mr X’s complaints. The panel recommended that the Council took certain actions to improve processes and learn from the complaint.
23. Shortly afterwards, the Council sent its response to the review panel’s findings. It agreed that two of Mr X’s complaints should be partially upheld and apologised to Mr X. The Council explained how it would implement the panel’s recommendations.
24. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

25. Mr X complains that the Council ignored a court order when it helped Ms Y remove B and B’s belongings from his home without his knowledge. He says not all of B’s belongings were returned when B was returned to his care.
26. The Council investigated this complaint using the statutory complaints procedure. As I have said above, the Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate the original complaint unless he considers that the investigation was flawed.
27. In this case, I find that the stage two investigation was proportionate, adequate, and thorough, and the Investigating Officer’s (IO) conclusions were evidence-based. I therefore do not consider the investigation was flawed.
28. For this reason, I have only investigated whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two independent investigation and stage three review panel.
29. I find that the Council properly considered the IO’s findings. It agreed with the IO that none of Mr X’s complaints should be upheld.
30. The stage three review panel did not agree with the IO and partially upheld two of Mr X’s complaints. The panel considered that the best way to resolve the complaint was by the Council taking certain actions. These were the panel’s recommendations. The panel considered that the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X an injustice. I agree with this finding.
31. I find that the Council implemented the panel’s recommendations without delay and has taken on board the learning from this complaint. I therefore find that the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage three review panel.
32. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

34. Mr X complains that the Council lied during the stage three review of his complaint and has incorrect records. Mr X says the Council lied in that the information it sent him before the stage three review panel had lies in it.
35. As I have said above, the Ombudsman normally expects someone to complain to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data, records, or data protection. The Ombudsman may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons.
36. In this case, I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. I consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain directly to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman