Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of allegations made by the complainant’s children against him. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the previous investigation by the council, and we cannot achieve the desired outcomes.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr N, says that:
• The council did not investigate properly allegations made by his children against him;
• Did not place equal weight on the evidence of his wife and step children;
• Produced an inaccurate report;
• Carried out an unnecessary and badly handled risk management process for which the outcome was the loss of Mr N’s job;
• Took no action to hold to account the individual officers he complained about;
• Failed to act on safeguarding issues raise by Mr N; and
• Has delayed in providing him with a complaint response.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr N and by the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr N now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Following allegations raised by Mr N’s children against him, the Council carried out a safeguarding assessment. Mr N says the report which was produced was inaccurate and based on unevidenced allegations. He further says that the social worker involved did not properly assess him or reflect his views, and did not place equal weight on the evidence of his wife and stepchildren, as that of his children.
7. The Council investigated the complaint, and its response upholds Mr N’s view that the social worker should have discussed matters with him more fully and acknowledged his views in her report. Nonetheless, it concludes that this did not affect the outcome, because of the serious nature of the allegations. It further says that despite the contrary views of his behaviour presented by his step children, the allegations made were serious enough to warrant investigation.
8. Mr N is unhappy about the decision to move to a risk management process, as he says this led to his employer being unfairly contacted, resulting in the loss of his job. However, the council has pointed out that the triggers were met, and that it therefore had a statutory duty to carry out the risk management process. In the light of the decision by the police not to take further action, the process required Mr N’s employer to be notified. Any action following from this is solely the responsibility of his employer
9. Mr N feels that there have been errors by council officers involved and that they should be held to account. We cannot consider this issue. Our role is to consider fault by the council as a corporate body, not by individual officers. Nonetheless I note that the Council’s response does make clear that it has taken appropriate action where it agrees there have been shortcomings.
10. Mr N also complains that he raised safeguarding concerns that the Council has not taken up, but the Council says it has no record of them being made. It further says having considered them now, it does not appear that they would have met the triggers for safeguarding procedures
11. Finally Mr N complains about delay in his complaint being investigated. The Council has upheld this complaint so further investigation of it would not serve any useful purpose

Back to top

Final decision

12. Subject to any comments Mr N might make, my view is we should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the previous investigation by the Council, and we could not achieve Mr N’s desired outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman