Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council’s social worker and her manager were at fault in the course of child protection action relating to her son. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss B, complains that the Council’s social worker and her manager were at fault in the course of child protection action relating to her son.

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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Miss B has said in support of her complaint and the complaint correspondence provided by the Council. I have offered Miss B the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss B’s family has been the subject of child protection action. Miss B argues that the Council’s social worker has been at fault. Specifically, she alleges that the social worker claimed her son suffered from autism due to neglect. She also says the social worker was party to a breach of her confidentiality, and that the Council unreasonably placed her son at a mainstream school when his Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) ceased.
8. Miss B made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council upheld it in part, and agreed to remove references to the social worker’s statement about her son’s autism from its records. Miss B does not believe this is sufficient. In settlement of her complaint she wants the Council to dismiss its social worker from her job and take disciplinary action against other employees.
9. There are insufficient grounds for us to investigate Miss B’s complaint. We will not investigate the part of the complaint which has already been upheld because there is nothing further for us to achieve. We cannot consider personnel matters and, by law, we cannot ask the Council to dismiss or discipline staff. That being the case, we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss B wants.
10. If Miss B believes the Council breached her confidentiality, she may bring her concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner, who is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider such matters. We will not intervene.
11. We cannot comment on whether a specific school is appropriate for Miss B’s son. Miss B had the right to appeal to SEND against the decision to cease her son’s EHCP, and we would normally expect someone to use the appeal right open to them.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman