Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Child and Family assessment report and the Council’s response to the complainant’s representations. This is because investigation would not achieve what the complainant wants, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council’s social worker produced a flawed Child and Family Assessment report and that the Council failed to properly investigate and respond to his subsequent representations.

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 investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s family was the subject of a Child and Family Assessment. Mr X says the assessment report was characterised by lies, inaccuracies and omissions. He says he complained informally and, when the matter remained unresolved, made a formal complaint.
6. Mr X is critical of the report itself, the responses of officers to his informal attempts to address the matter and the response to his complaint. Specifically, he argues that a commitment to replace the assessment report has been reneged on, and that there has been no engagement with him during the complaint process, which he does not believe amounts to an investigation. He wants the Council to uphold its commitment to remove and replace the assessment report.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation would not achieve what Mr X wants or lead to a different outcome. The key matter is the content of the assessment report. The correspondence Mr X has provided shows that some amendments have been made. The Council has declined to make further amendments but has offered to place a statement of his dissenting views with the report on its file, along with a version of the report annotated by him.
8. The Ombudsman would not seek to achieve anything further. We will not normally ask the Council to amend its records, even where they can be shown to be inaccurate. This is because they should reflect the views of the officers at the time they were made. The most we would seek to achieve is that a complainant’s dissenting views are held on the file. That has already been offered, so our intervention is not warranted. If Mr X wishes to challenge the accuracy of the content further, his recourse is to pursue his Right to Rectification.
9. We will not investigate how the Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint. Where the substantive matter does not fall to be investigated by the Ombudsman, as is the case here, it is not a good use of public money to investigate how the complaint has been dealt with.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation would not achieve what he wants, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman