Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to consider a complaint from Mr X under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council has refused to consider his complaint about a child safeguarding matter under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mr X also complains that the Council placed contact restriction on him when he submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR), in breach of GDPR.

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. (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. Another Local Authority carried out an investigation into a complaint from Mr X into safeguarding concerns he raised about his children. During the stage two investigation, the Independent Person (IP) raised concerns about how that Local Authority had dealt with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns. We considered a complaint from Mr X about these matters and concluded that we could not investigate them because the issues raised were not separable from court proceedings.
8. Mr X says his children have since moved to South Tyneside. He contacted the Council, providing a copy of the IP report and asked the Council to consider a complaint about the same safeguarding concerns under the statutory process.
9. The Council’s children’s services considered the information provided by Mr X but concluded that the matter had already been addressed by the other Local Authority. The Council refused to consider a complaint from Mr X because it was not involved with the case and that the concerns had been considered by the other Local Authority. The Council advised Mr X to seek contact with his children via the courts.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The issues raised by him regarding his safeguarding concerns are not separable from court proceedings and we therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint about them.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X's complaint. The Council fully considered the issues raised by Mr X before reaching its decision and explained its reasons for not proceeding with a complaint, correctly advised Mr X that the only way to seek contact with his children was through the courts.
12. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council breached GDPR when restricting his contact in response to a SAR he made. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about GDPR breaches.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman