Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection failings by the Council as doing so would be unlikely to lead to different or better outcome for Mr X, or to any worthwhile outcome in terms of Council practice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained there were multiple failings by the Council after it received a safeguarding referral concerning his children.

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, 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s own investigation found multiple faults in social work practice. These related principally to delay in starting child protection proceedings, though also to poor record keeping. The Council accepted these faults had happened and offered Mr X £1,200 as well agreeing a series of changes to its practice. It also offered to correct inaccuracies in its records.
7. Despite these failings, the nature of the information the Council received, which I have seen, was sufficient that it could decide to commence child protection proceedings and to make Mr X’s children subject to child protection plans. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find those decisions matters of fault rather than opinion. It is also unlikely that investigation by us would lead to further recommendations for practice changes. Additionally, financial remedies recommended by us are symbolic, and it is unlikely we would recommend significantly more than the Council’s own offer.
8. Any matters of remaining data inaccuracy or breaches not accepted by the Council would be best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because it has powers we lack to require rectification and to impose penalties.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different, better or more worthwhile outcome than the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman