Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning the promotion of contact between Miss X and her children. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The matters complained of are not separable from issues of contact, which were subject to court orders, in respect of which Miss X had and has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council failed to promote contact with her children. This was in line with a court order. In her complaint to the Council, she also stated the Council’s communications with her were poor. She said it failed to hand over two drawings done by her children, and that a social worker was rude to her on one occasion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is not relevant to my decision that the Council has upheld the majority of Miss X’s five points of complaint. However, I note that, but for the jurisdictional limits that apply, I might have reached a different view given the Council’s acceptance of fault.
7. The first three points of complaint, which are the most serious, directly relate to the promotion of contact between Miss X and her children in line with court orders. Any breaches of court orders are matters for a court and we have no jurisdiction to consider them, regardless of whether a council accepts fault.
8. The fourth point of complaint was poor communication. However, the communications were directly bound up with issues of contact, with Miss X seeking more. The only sense in which we could consider this would be as a purely administrative matter. It was accepted by the Council that some communications from Miss X went unanswered. However, the effect of this relates to the promotion of Miss X’s contact with her children, which was ordered by a court. Any breach of a court order is outside our jurisdiction. Investigating would not be justified by any potential injustice unrelated to the issue of contact. It is also unlikely that we could establish that a social worker was rude on a single occasion, or that doing so would lead to the outcome Miss X is looking for.
9. The last point of complaint concerns the handing over of two drawings done by Miss X’s children. It is unlikely that investigation of this matter, now more than three years old, would lead to a different outcome.
10. I also note that, apart from an apology, which the Council has given, Miss X wants it to assist her in approaching the court to improve the amount of contact she has with her children. We could not recommend an action about a matter that is outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:

• This would not add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome, specifically not to the outcome Miss X wants; and
• The principal matters complained of are not separable from issues of contact and possible breaches of court orders, in respect of which Miss X had and has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman