Summary: Mr X complained about incorrect and misleading information being included in a text message sent to him by the Council’s social worker. We should not investigate this complaint as this fault did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X, and investigation would not achieve a meaningful outcome for him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s social worker included false and misleading information in a text message to him. The message indicated the police would not consider video evidence he had offered.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us.
4. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is a family member of a child who has a social worker from the Council. Mr X showed the social worker some video evidence. The social worker showed the video to police officers based in the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH), a team with members from several organisations, which takes child protection referrals.
6. The social worker sent a text message to Mr X which said Mr X could report his concerns to the police, but “I’ve shared footage with the police who advise they aren’t going to respond to this”.
7. Mr X contacted the police directly, and they told him they had no record of having seen the video. Mr X complained to the Council, and the Council clarified the social worker had misunderstood the advice from the MASH team’s police officers. Mr X believed the social worker had wilfully misled him, but the Council decided this was not the case. The social worker used the incident as a learning opportunity and the Council provided explanations to Mr X.
8. The Council said while the text did include incorrect information, this had not caused a personal injustice to Mr X. He was caused some frustration, however I agree this fault did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X, or any other family members, that would justify investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr X contacted the police independently of the social worker to obtain a direct response, so the incorrect information did not change the outcome.
9. The Council offered to apologise to Mr X, however he says he would not accept an apology now, given the time that has passed. Investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks, as we cannot recommend disciplinary action against individuals and in any event, based on the information I have seen, any injustice caused to Mr X would not warrant a remedy further to an apology.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the fault, which the Council acknowledged, did not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X. Investigation would not lead to a meaningful remedy to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman