Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to child protection concerns about the complainant’s children. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, says that the Council:
• Failed to communicate adequately with him following an alleged assault involving his son;
• Failed to provide accurate information regarding the alleged victim; and
• Included erroneous information in the assessment produced as part of its Section 47 investigation following the alleged assault.

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: it is unlikely we would find fault, 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 all of the information and evidence provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent Mr X a draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
5. In carrying out these Section 47 duties, the local authority has the power to call on other bodies to help with its enquiries, including the police and relevant health and education professionals.

What happened

6. Mr X’s son allegedly assaulted a member of staff at a sports event. The incident was reported to the police by the sports club and a referral was made to the Council’s Children’s Services.
7. Mr X complains that there was a significant delay between the date of the incident and the Council notifying the parents. He says no support was provided to his son when the police met him. He complains that an officer of the Council purposefully concealed the age of the alleged victim and was racially motivated in doing so.
8. Mr X complains about the Council’s visits to his children in response to the incident, and asks the Council to cease contact. He also says the Council included erroneous information in its Section 47 report.
9. The Council says an attempt to contact Mr X was made within three working days of being notified of the incident, but was unable to reach him as he was out of the country. Contact was, however, initially made with his children’s mother instead.
10. Regarding police contact with Mr X’s son, the Council has told Mr X that it was the police’s responsibility to ensure his son’s rights were safeguarded. Any concerns regarding police conduct are outside the Council’s jurisdiction.
11. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint concerning information provided on the alleged victim’s age, and says that it could not find any evidence the error in age was intentionally concealed or racially motivated.
12. The Council has apologised to Mr X for an erroneous date included in its Section 47 report. It has taken steps to correct and remove this information. Regarding a second disputed piece of information, the Council has looked into this and provided Mr X with its evidence to show why it considers the information accurate. If Mr X wishes to pursue these matters further, he should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office as this body can investigate matters of this nature.
13. The Council acknowledges that Mr X says he has had a negative experience with Children’s Services in the past, but explains that its investigation was undertaken pursuant to its duty under Section 47. The Council says that its priority in conducting Section 47 enquiries is to consider any potential risks towards children concerned, not to prove or disprove allegations subject to a police investigation.
14. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint fully and provided reasons as to why visits and enquiries were made as part of its duties under Section 47. It is, therefore, unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with the Council’s decision and an investigation is not warranted.
15. Mr X asks the Council to cease contacting his family. The Ombudsman, however, does not have the authority to provide this outcome that Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint because I am unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman