Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s Children’s Services in a man’s case. This is because part of the complaint has been made late, and there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding other matters which has caused the man a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the Council’s Children’s Services’ involvement in his case in 2017 and 2018. In particular, Mr B complained that:

• the Council appointed a senior manager in Children's Services (‘Manager X’) to deal with his case without his knowledge or consent;
• at the meeting when he was first introduced to Manager X, officers did not give her job title or say she was from Children's Services; and
• the Council has never fully explained the reasons why it involved Children's Services in his case and failed to inform him about the outcome.

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 an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We normally cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided about his complaint and his comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also took account of Mr B’s comments in response to a draft of this decision. In addition, I considered information from the Council about its contacts with Mr B.

Back to top

Key facts

5. The Council said that in June 2017 its Early Help Service (EHS) received a referral from Mr B’s sons’ school. The Council said the referral was made with Mr B’s consent and input, and that he engaged with the EHS until the case was closed in February 2018. 
6. However Mr B said the referral to EHS was actually from a domestic abuse charity which was helping him at the time.
7. In early 2018 the Council was also involved in issues relating to Mr B’s housing as he urgently needed to move to new accommodation.
8. The Council said it advised Mr B on 15 May 2018 that Manager X was a manager from the EHS. But it said by then she was no longer attached to the EHS and was working on other projects. Mr B said that he was not aware that the EHS was part of Children’s Services at that time.
9. The Council said that Mr B called at the Council’s office on 18 May and Manager X and another manager (‘Manager Y’) agreed to meet with him. However Mr B provided a copy of an email from the Council at the time showing that this meeting was pre-arranged and took place on 17 May.
10. The Council said it was agreed at the meeting that Manager X would be Mr B’s first point of contact for support in securing housing, and her role was to liaise with the Housing service on his behalf and help with the practicalities of finding a new property.
11. But Mr B said at the meeting the officers did not tell him Manager X’s job title or say she was from Children’s Services. He said he only found this out at a much later date.
12. The Council said as the meeting was not pre-arranged, minutes were not taken. But it also said Manager Y confirmed the outcome of the meeting in an email to Mr B a few days later.
13. The Council said it also offered Mr B further help from the EHS in May 2018 but he did not take this up. The Council said neither the EHS nor any other service within Children’s Services were involved in Mr B’s case during or after this period.
14. Mr B also said Manager X had very little involvement in his housing case after May 2018.

Analysis

15. The Council’s EHS was first involved in PA’s case between June 2017 and February 2018. But I consider we should not investigate this part of Mr B’s complaint.
16. In particular, Mr B has only recently brought his complaint to us in this respect. However, the events in question happened over three years ago. In the circumstances I consider his complaint is late, and therefore outside our jurisdiction to investigate, as Mr B has made it well over 12 months since he first knew about the issue.
17. I also see no good reason to exercise our discretion and investigate this part of Mr B’s complaint now despite it being late. In particular I consider it unlikely we could undertake a fair or worthwhile investigation now about what happened going back almost four years.
18. I do not see that the jurisdictional restriction regarding time applies to Mr B’s complaint about Children’s Services’ subsequent role in his case. This is because I understand he may not have known some of the relevant facts until later.
19. It appears there are some inaccuracies in the Council’s account of its contacts with Mr B in May 2018, and some differences of opinion between the parties about what was said and what took place in these contacts.
20. However I am not convinced there is evidence of any substantive fault on the Council’s part regarding these matters, or that Mr B was caused a significant injustice as a result to warrant further investigation.
21. In particular I understand Mr B’s main concerns from this time were that Children’s Services was secretly carrying out a child protection investigation, and that Manager X’s intervention was an underhand way of keeping Children’s Services involved in his case.
22. But I am not convinced there is evidence of any child protection investigation in Mr B’s case after February 2018. I can see that Manager X’s role may have caused some confusion in this respect. But I have seen no information which suggests that she was working for any of the teams in Children’s Services at the time, or which gives reason to doubt that her involvement was intended to be on a one-off basis to support Mr B regarding his housing.
23. The Council is also clear in saying there was no formal intervention or investigation by Children’s Services after February 2018, and I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. Therefore I do not see we have grounds to pursue Mr B’s main concern that the Council has not been open with him about the extent of its Children’s Services’ involvement in his case.

Final decision

24. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s Children’s Services’ intervention in his case in 2017 and 2018. This is because part of Mr B’s complaint has been made late, and there is no sign that any fault by the Council in other respects has caused him an injustice to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman