Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X and child protection and child in need matters relating to his children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has upheld most of his complaints, apologised and offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused. We could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters involving his children. He believes the Council has acted in a gender discriminatory way against him, failed to record accurate information or recognise and act on abuse of his children perpetrated by his ex-partner. This has caused Mr X significant mental distress. Mr X wants the Council employees involved to be removed from their positions and for his children to be removed from his ex-partner’s care.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)
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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s children have at various points been the subject of Child Protection (CP) and Child in Need (CiN) plans under the category of emotional harm caused by the impact of their parents’ significant acrimony and counter allegations of abuse of the children by each other.
8. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaints under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
9. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
10. The independent Investigating Officer (IO) appointed to investigate Mr X’s complaints upheld all ten of the heads of complaint it agreed with Mr X at the start of their investigation. The Council did not agree with all the IO’s findings, but issued an apology, offered a remedy payment in recognition of the distress caused and explain how it would learn from the issues identified in this case. Mr X escalated his complaint to an independent review panel at stage three of the statutory process.
11. The stage three review panel agreed that all bar one of Mr X’s ten complaints should be upheld. It decided to partially uphold part one of Mr X’s sixth head of complaint and make no finding about part two. The Council’s final response to Mr X following the panel review rejected its findings on parts of the complaints it upheld.
12. While councils are entitled to reject the findings of IOs and stage three review panels, the Ombudsman’s position is that such findings should stand.
13. Further investigation of Mr X’s complaints by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses. The investigation and consideration completed by the IO and stage three review panel have been detailed and thorough. The remedial action the Council has offered to Mr X is in line with the recommendations we would typically make in such cases.
14. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants of getting individual officers removed from their positions at the Council. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or conduct of an individual social worker, he can report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England. Any disciplinary actions between the Council and its employees are outside our jurisdiction.
15. We also cannot order the Council to remove Mr X’s children from his ex-partner’s care as he has requested. Matters such as this are for the courts to consider and fall outside our jurisdiction. I understand the Council’s involvement has ended and issues relating to Mr X’s children are the subject of private law proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation could not provide add to the Council’s responses. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman