Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action carried out by the Council in respect of the complainant’s child. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. Mr X says the Council’s single assessment contained inaccurate information, that a social worker coerced his ex-partner into changing bail conditions and that the Council refused to allow his mother to supervise contact with he and his child.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(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. The Council’s children’s services became involved with Mr X and his child after an allegation led to Mr X’s arrest, and a referral being made to the Council by the police. The Council subsequently completed a single assessment to identify any risks to Mr X’s child.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said that much of the information contained in the single assessment which he considered to be inaccurate came from third parties such as the police, and whilst Mr X may not have been charged this does not mean that the Council should retrospectively change the contents of the assessment.
9. The Council said that decisions around limiting contact between Mr X and his son, who could supervise that contact, that Mr X should attend a programme and the decision that his son was at risk of significant harm were all made after assessing relevant information from a range of sources. The Council found no evidence that the allocated social worker had coerced Mr X’s ex-partner into changing his bail conditions.
10. For an investigation by the Ombudsman to be warranted, there would need to be a realistic prospect that we could add substantially to the findings of the investigation the Council has already carried out. That is not the case here.
11. The Council has informed Mr X that much of the information which he considers to be inaccurate came from third parties, such as the police, and if he wishes to challenge the accuracy of the information he should contact the police. If Mr X thinks the Council is recording inaccurate personal information about him it is reasonable to expect him to use the right to rectification process and then raise the matter with the Information Commissioner of the council refuses to make amendments.
12. Mr X’s complaint that a social worker tried to coerce his partner into changing his bail conditions has received a proper level of scrutiny, with the Council taking into account relevant information.
13. Finally, Mr X disputes the Councils justification what contact restrictions should be in place, what level of risk his child was exposed too and what programmes Mr X should complete. Whilst I acknowledge that Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council on these points, they are conclusions it was entitled to make and without fault the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of these decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman