Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s role in his son (whom I refer to as Y) moving from his mother’s house to his grandmother’s house. Y’s mother is Mr X’s ex-partner.
2. Mr X says the Council – which was providing Early Help support to Y and his mother – arranged for Y to move into his grandmother’s care, and arranged for Y’s mother to pay his grandmother a £300 per month allowance. Mr X says this arrangement did not account for the fact that he paid (and continues to pay) Y’s mother child support for her to look after Y.
3. Mr X says the Council failed to tell him about the new arrangement, and, when he eventually found out about it, refused to tell him when the arrangement started or whether it was temporary or permanent. He says this has frustrated his attempt to go to court to recoup some of the child support he has paid to Y’s mother.
4. Mr X says that, if Y’s residence with his grandmother is only temporary, Y remains a potential risk to Mr X’s daughter – who still lives with Y’s mother – because of his violent behaviour. Mr X says the Council has set out no safeguarding plan for if Y returns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

7. In response to Mr X’s complaint – which is summarised in the opening section of this decision statement – the Council said Y’s living arrangements were a family arrangement. It said it does not know when this arrangement began.
8. The Council said it also could not say whether Y’s residence with his grandmother would be permanent or temporary, because had no part in arranging it. It said its Early Help worker had no authority to arrange a child’s placement or make any financial agreements – this, again, was a decision made by Y’s mother.
9. The Council said safeguarding during an Early Help plan is the shared responsibility of a number of agencies, as well as the family – not solely that of the Council. It said any concerns about the children’s safety were discussed at a family group conference and a professionals’ meeting.

My findings

10. Although the Ombudsman can, and does, investigate complaints about Early Help support provided by councils, the law also gives us the discretion not to look at complaints in certain circumstances.
11. As the Council has told Mr X, Early Help workers have no role in the placement of children, nor in the provision of financial support to children and families. These functions are exercised by qualified social workers. The Council had no social work involvement with Mr X’s children.
12. Because of this, I consider it unlikely that the Council had any responsibility for Y’s move to his grandmother’s home, or for any decision about financial support. It was Y’s mother’s responsibility to inform the child maintenance service of any changes to caring arrangements, not the Council’s.
13. Mr X also complains that the Council refused to give him a start date of Y’s new living arrangements, and refused to tell him whether this would be temporary or permanent. However, again, it seems unlikely the Council should have known any of this, given that it was (and continues to be) a family decision.
14. Mr X says the Council also failed to put safeguarding arrangements in place for his daughter to protect her from Y. However, it does not appear, from what Mr X has said, that there is a current the risk to his daughter – as Y is not living with her. Because of this, I can see no reason why the Council should be taking safeguarding action. And Mr X and his ex-partner, as parents of the children, are primarily responsible for their safety.
15. For the reasons given above, it is unlikely I would find fault with the Council if I investigated Mr X’s complaint. Because of this, the law allows me not to investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have discontinued my investigation, because it is unlikely I would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman