Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action. This is because we would not add anything to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action relating to his daughter and in responding to his subsequent complaint.

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 would not add to any previous investigation by the organisation our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s daughter was subject to child in need action, which was stepped up to child protection action as a result of allegations she made. Mr X complains that his daughter’s social worker inappropriately influenced his daughter’s decisions, placing her at risk of harm, and that he and his wife were unreasonably and unlawfully prevented from having contact with her for a period of nine weeks. He says the Council failed to conclude the Section 47 child protection enquiry within the appropriate timescale.
6. Mr X made a complaint to the Council which was considered under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. The complaint completed the three stages of the procedure and was upheld in part.
7. Mr X is critical of the Stage 2 report, in that it was based on an interview with only one officer and was therefore one-sided. He is also critical of the outcome of the Stage 3 review panel and the Council’s subsequent final response. He argues that the Council should make what he describes as a proper apology, provide a full explanation and a pay compensation.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not add anything to the findings of the investigation which has already been carried out. The statutory children’s services complaint procedure exists precisely to give complaints such as Mr X’s a proper level of scrutiny and the documents show that this has been the case.
9. The evidence shows that Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Stage 2 report was considered by the Stage 3 review panel, and that it shared his view that it was insufficient to interview only one officer. It did not however find that the Stage 2 findings were flawed.
10. The Council has accepted all findings and recommendations made during the process in full. It has apologised where it has been found to be at fault and offered a symbolic payment. The evidence is indicative of a proper level of consideration and the findings are reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. It is not therefore for us to intervene to substitute alternative findings or recommendations. Our intervention is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman