Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Ms B’s complaint. We cannot achieve the majority of outcomes she wants, and the remaining outcome does not justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, complains about the Council’s actions during child protection enquiries it made after receiving a safeguarding referral about her son. I refer to her son as C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information from Ms B and the Council. I wrote to Ms B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

4. Ms B complained to the Council in 2018. She made a number of allegations about the Council’s practice in conducting enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. She complained about the quality of the investigation and analysis, and said the Council had not listened to her. She said the Council’s recording had been poor. She said it had shared information with her ex-partner (C’s father) which led him to believe she had harmed C. She said the Council’s failings caused a great deal of distress and meant she had to go through a traumatic and costly custody battle after C’s father restricted her contact with C.
5. The Council considered Ms B’s complaint at the first two stages of the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. It upheld part of the complaint, and apologised for the areas in which it accepted fault. It agreed to train staff members on managing contact in cases of parental conflict, and on complaints handling. It agreed to put a note on C’s social care file making clear that it does not consider Ms B to pose a risk to C. It offered her a remedy of £750.
6. Ms B is dissatisfied with the Council’s findings and proposed remedies. She says it did not uphold her complaints about its disproportionate response to the referral and about its failure to properly take account of her views in its analysis.
7. Ms B also says the complaints procedure failed to fully meet her desired outcomes. She says:
• she has already told the Council what inaccuracies are in its records, so she should not have to do so again;
• the family court made decisions based on the inaccurate information in the Council’s records;
• when a further safeguarding referral was made to the Council recently, it took no action;
• the Council’s financial remedy should be higher; and
• the Council should write to the judge at the family court, admitting its records were inaccurate.

My findings

8. The Ombudsman is a body which looks at maladministration and service failure (or ‘fault’). If we find fault with a council, we can recommend a range of remedies.
9. However, if we decide that we cannot (or would not) recommend a remedy which a complainant is seeking, we must consider whether continuing with an investigation is a good use of public money.
10. Ms B wants the Council’s social worker to face disciplinary action. However, the Ombudsman does not comment on individual members of staff and does not get involved in disciplinary procedures. Social Work England is the organisation best-placed to consider such matters, and Ms B can contact them directly if she chooses to do so.
11. Ms B also wants her and C’s names removing from the Council’s records. It is very unlikely that I would recommend this, even if I found fault with the Council, as we usually expect councils to keep records of actions they take to safeguard children (whatever the outcome).
12. However, if Ms B thinks the Council holds inaccurate records about her or C, and wants them to be rectified or erased, she can ask the Council to do this under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). If she is dissatisfied with the Council’s response, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
13. Ms B also wants the Council to provide her with compensation. I can recommend a financial remedy if I feel a complainant has suffered distress because of a council’s failings. However, the Ombudsman says in our remedy guidance that “our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might”. Instead, we recommend symbolic payments which ‘recognise’ an injustice.
14. Our guidance says a remedy payment for distress is often between £100 and £300 (although in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, more may be justified). This is not to say that such a payment always represents adequate compensation. It is just that the Ombudsman is not an organisation which can decide the monetary value which should be placed on the ‘distress’ someone has suffered. Only a court can do this.
15. The Council’s financial offer to Ms B is higher than the Ombudsman’s usual range of distress remedy payments. Although she feels this is inadequate, my view – for the reasons given above – is that I am not in a position to recommend substantial compensation for the Council’s failings.
16. This means that, if I investigated Ms B’s complaint, the only remedy I would be likely to recommend for her (if I found fault with the Council) would be an apology. This would not come close to achieving the outcomes she wants, and is not an outcome which justifies the Ombudsman’s involvement.
17. For the reasons given above, I will discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation into Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman