Summary: Mr F complains about his dealings with his children’s social worker and Independent Reviewing Officer. I have discontinued my investigation as it is unlikely I could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about his dealings with his children’s social worker and the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who chairs the core group meetings.
2. In particular, Mr F complains:
1. they treat him less favourably than his ex-wife;
2. they tell him how he should manage his finances and the houses he owns;
3. they believed his daughter’s account of sleeping arrangements in his caravan and disregarded his own account; and
4. the IRO spoke to him in an unpleasant manner.
3. Mr F complains the Council has refused his request to allocate a different IRO to his children’s case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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

5. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr F;
• information provided by the Council, including its response to his complaint at all three stages of the Council’s complaints process.
6. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr F and his ex-wife, Ms M, have two children.
8. The children were made subjects of Child Protection Plans in November 2018 under the category of neglect. The Council was concerned about the impact of the breakdown of Mr F and Ms M’s relationship on the children.
9. Mr F agreed to leave the family home, but when he returned the Council began the Public Law Outline process. This is the process a council follows when it is considering taking children into care.
10. Mr F and Ms M also began divorce proceedings.
11. Mr F left the family home again and lives with relatives and in his caravan.
12. The Council remained concerned about the impact of Mr F and Ms M’s relationship on the children and continued to hold core group meetings. Core group meetings bring together the professionals involved with the children to monitor progress of the child protection plan.
13. In October 2019, Mr F complained to the Council. He complained the Council treats Ms M more favourably, and he was unhappy with the suggestions the Council made about his financial and housing arrangements. He did not get on with the IRO who chaired the core group meetings.

Complaint a) the Council treats Mr F less favourably than Ms M

14. Mr F complains the Council treats him less favourably than his ex-wife. He says he was the children’s main carer before he separated from Ms M. He complains he was forced to leave the family home. He says he only finds out about the children at core group meetings.
15. Ms M is now the children’s main carer, although she has agreed that Mr F can have overnight care of the children on Tuesdays and every other weekend. Ms M obtained a court order which required Mr F to leave the family home.
16. The Council does not make decisions about who should care for the children or where the adults should live. Decisions about the care of the children and who should live in the family home are a private matter Mr F and Ms M resolved themselves during their divorce. The Council’s involvement was to protect the children from the fallout of the breakdown of Mr F and Ms M’s relationship.
17. If the adults are unable to resolve their differences and provide adequate care for the children, the Council may apply to court to take the children into care. This was not necessary because Mr F and Ms M reached an agreement. If Mr F is unhappy with the agreement, he should take this up with Ms M, not the Council.
18. Mr F and Ms M have agreed joint care of their children. This requires them to cooperate and share information. The Council is not a go-between. Mr F regularly attends core group meetings to discuss the council’s involvement. The children’s social worker provides written updated of what is agreed at the meetings.
19. I decided not to investigate these matters any further as it is unlikely I could add to the Council’s response. While I do not doubt Mr F has found the Council’s involvement challenging, it is unlikely I would find fault that had caused Mr F an injustice. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Complaint b) Mr F’s finances and properties

20. Mr F complains the children’s social worker and IRO questioned him about his finances and the properties he owns. He does not think they should. He is unhappy they have not had similar discussions about property and finances with Ms M.
21. Mr F owns buy-to-let properties. When he agreed to leave the family home, he said he was homeless. He stayed with relatives and lived in his caravan. The Council suggested he live in one of his buy-to-let properties. Mr F said this was not possible because the properties are mortgaged.
22. The evidence I have seen suggests the Council was concerned for Mr F’s welfare and was trying to be helpful. Mr F does not have to discuss his finances and his properties with the Council if he does not want to.
23. The Council’s concern is that the children should be safe when staying with Mr F. My understanding is the Council has no concerns about Mr F’s ability to ensure the children’s safety, either at his mother’s or at his caravan.
24. Mr F complained the Council had not visited his mother’s and should not take his word that it is safe. It is unclear why Mr F should want to undermine himself just to pursue a complaint. If he believes he is unable to safely care for the children at his mother’s, he should exercise his parental responsibility and make alternative arrangements.
25. Mr F complains the Council does not discuss finances and accommodation with Ms M. That is a matter between Ms M and the Council.
26. I decided not to investigate these matters further as it is unlikely I would find fault, and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Complaint c) sleeping arrangements in the caravan

27. Mr F’s daughter said Mr F and the children shared a bed in the caravan. Mr F explained that he slept on the floor between the children’s beds. The Council recorded both Mr F and his daughter’s account but decided to take no action.
28. Mr F is unhappy the Council believed his daughter. He thinks the Council should visit the caravan to see for itself.
29. Visiting the caravan would not resolve the matter one way or the other.
30. I decided not to investigate the matter further as there is nothing I could add to the Council’s response. It is unlikely I would find fault, or that investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Complaint d) the IRO spoke to Mr F in an unpleasant manner

31. Mr F does not get on with the IRO. He complains the IRO raised his voice and spoke to him in an unpleasant manner in front of his solicitor. Mr F then asked the minute-taker to record his comments at a core group meeting, but the IRO told him he would have to wait his turn to speak. Mr F left the meeting before speaking. Mr F objects to the IRO chairing meetings and wants a different IRO assigned to his case.
32. The Council accepts the IRO raised his voice, but says this was because Mr F would not allow him to speak. The Council does not accept the IRO was unprofessional. The Council has decided not to allocate a different IRO to the children’s case as it does not consider it would be in their interests.
33. I decided not to investigate these matters further as there is nothing I could add to the Council’s response and I am unlikely to find fault. I cannot judge complaints about the way the IRO spoke to Mr F. It is clear Mr F did not appreciate the advice the IRO was offering, but this does not mean the IRO was wrong.
34. The Council has refused to allocate a new IRO to the children’s case because it does not consider it would be in the children’s interests. The IRO’s role is to ensure the welfare of the children. I am satisfied the Council continued to involve Mr F in core group meetings in spite of his disagreement with the IRO. Indeed the Council says the IRO valued Mr F’s contribution. There are no grounds for me to question the Council’s decision not to replace the IRO.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have discontinued my investigation as there is nothing I could add to the Council’s response and I am unlikely to find fault by investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman