Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team visiting his home. It is unlikely we would find fault in the decision to visit.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council visiting his property.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s replies to him which it provided. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says the Council’s children services officers visited his home. He says the officers’ behaviour was suspicious and odd. He says that one visit involved a car accident outside his home. He says this traumatised his children causing them to be anxious and have sleepless nights.
7. Mr X complained to the Council through his local MP.
8. The Council in reply explained that its officers visited his home for child protection safeguarding reasons. It explained in detail why the first visit ended and why the second visit was accompanied by the police. It said the two officers who visited on the first visit had a minor car accident in their haste to get away from the street.

Analysis

9. We do not normally investigate complaints for compensation for physical or mental harm by the Council’s actions. This is because the Courts are more suited to decide personal injury complaints. Mr X’s claim the visits traumatised his children causing anxiety, is one that is more suitable to the Courts.
10. Mr X says he would like the officers involved removed from their roles. The Council has a legal duty to investigate when it has child protection concerns. This includes visiting a child’s home. The Council’s account shows it had concerns. We are unlikely to find fault in the decision to visit on both occasions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and the Courts are more suited to decide any personal injury claim.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman