Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bias by a social worker and a question Mr X said the social worker asked him on the telephone. Unless and until there is any dispute about the contact and residence arrangements for Mr X’s child, there is not enough injustice flowing from any question the social worker asked to warrant our involvement. Were there to be a dispute and the social worker’s actions to become relevant, Mr X would have a right it would be reasonable to use to go to court as only a court could determine arrangements.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a social worker asked him an inappropriate question on the telephone and failed to visit him in person when responding to a child protection referral about his child. He said the social worker was biased and dishonest and the Council was trying to cover this up.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. There are two possible scenarios relevant to this complaint. The first is where there is no dispute about the residence and contact arrangements for Mr X’s child and who may safely have care of the child. The second scenario is where a dispute has arisen or arises.
8. In the first case any injustice to Mr X from any actions of the social worker is unlikely to be sufficient to warrant investigation by us. The question Mr X said he was asked by the social worker, while not one any parent would wish to be asked, does not appear to have led to any view by the social worker that Mr X had acted in an inappropriate way with his child.
9. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint also stated that the child’s mother was spoken to face-to-face as the child, who needed to be spoken to face-to-face, was with her at the time. It would not be fault to call a parent by telephone if they were not present when the child was seen.
10. The second scenario would be one where there was a dispute between parents about the contact and residency arrangements for a child. Were that to occur here, any opinions of the social worker about Mr X’s suitability to care for his child would become more significant and could create potential injustice if they were arrived at in error. However, that would not be for us to say, as any decisions about contact and residence would have to be made by a court. Once any party served papers with a court we would be legally barred from investigating. As only a court could decide where the child should live and who might safely care for them, in those circumstances it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to Mr X to warrant our involvement.
12. In the event of any assessment carried out by the Council becoming relevant to a dispute about who may safely care for Mr X’s child, he would have a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman