Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his child’s safety and its assessment of with whom she should have lived. This is not a separable matter from those that were or could have been considered in court and investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the impact of the Council’s actions on his family’s life was extreme. He said his child was put at risk.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
5. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Our previous investigation (20 008 334) found fault with the way in which the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the actions of social workers. In that investigation we declined to consider some matters as we felt the Council’s own investigation was robust and we would be limited by matters having been subject to court action.
9. The Council has carried out a further investigation of safeguarding matters, which concluded after we issued our decision in complaint 20 008 334. Having read the records of that investigation, it is clear the matters complained of were essentially who the Council considered Mr X’s child should have lived with, and whether there was a safeguarding risk in living with a named person. The presence of court orders here is significant. For an investigation to be worthwhile, there would need to be a realistic prospect that we could separate the safeguarding matter from matters that were or could have been raised in court. We would also need to be a realistic prospect that we could say the decisions of social workers went beyond the bounds of professional judgement. I do not find this any more likely after the Council’s second investigation that we did when we issued the decision in complaint 20 008 334.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because this would not be likely to lead to a worthwhile outcome, and because little of the matters complained of is separable from matters which were or could have been considered by a court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman