Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because nearly all the complaint concern matters that have either been considered in court or are too closely linked to the court proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint about these matters or in how it considered the complainants requests for reasonable adjustments.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council’s children’s services has dealt with matters relating to the care and contact arrangements of his children. Mr X complaints has raised several concerns about the Council including that it:
• Provided inaccurate, fabricated, misleading evidence during court proceedings.
• Holds inaccurate information about him which has been shared with other professionals.
• Failed to properly deal with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns about his children.
• Refused to change the family’s social worker.
• Failed to properly consider Mr X’s reasonable adjustments.
• Failed to properly consider Mr X’s complaints about these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• 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, section 34(B))

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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

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. Mr X complained to the Council, but it refused to investigate his complaint due to ongoing care proceedings. Once care proceedings ended, the Council wrote to Mr X asking him to clarify his complaint. Mr X asked to meet with the Council in person, which it agreed. Mr X attended a meeting with the Council in May along with his advocate. The Council says it was unable to gain an understanding of the issues Mr X wanted to complain about during the meeting, so Mr X agreed to confirm in writing using a summary or list which complaints he wanted the Council to pursue.
8. Mr X asked the Council for a further in person meeting, but it declined the request because Mr X had not provided the summary of his complaint. The Council wrote to Mr X in August advising him that if he did not provide the list of outstanding matters, it would close his complaint. The Council closed his complaint in early September after he failed to provide the agreed list of outstanding issues.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It was reasonable for the Council to seek clarification on the issues he raised. Without receiving the clarification, the Council’s decision to take no further action was also reasonable.
10. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s requests for reasonable adjustments. The Council considered and agreed to Mr X’s request for a face-to-face meeting to discuss his complaint. It did not however agree to a further meeting, but fully explained why.
11. Nearly all of the issues raised by Mr X’s, either to the Council or to the Ombudsman, relate to the Council’s involvement in the care and contact arrangements of his children. These have been subject to court proceedings which places them outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This includes any information that the Council provided to the courts during proceedings.
12. Mr X has raised safeguarding concerns about the care of his children with the Council. These matters are too closely linked to the court proceedings as details about the issues raised have been included in assessments or reports provided to the courts.
13. Mr X raised a safeguarding concern after one of his children was left at school. The Council said it did not consider this to be a safeguarding matter as the incident occurred due to a misunderstanding regarding contact arrangements on that day. I will not investigate this matter because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached the decision that this was not a safeguarding matter and because the Council has apologised to Mr X for any role it had in the misunderstanding so further investigation into this point would not achieve a different outcome.
14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused his request to change his family’s social worker. This is because we could not achieve the outcome he is seeking. It is for the Council to decide how to allocate work to its officers, and it is not for the Ombudsman to express a view.
15. Finally, I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council holds inaccurate information about him and has shared this information with other professionals. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent authority that deals with complaints about public authorities’ handled data. The ICO are better placed to consider a complaint from Mr X, if he feels the Council is holding or sharing inaccurate information about him.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because most of his concerns are about matters that have either been considered in court or are too closely related to those proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision making regarding other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman