Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of Mr X’s family. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking. The recent child protection decision was one the Council was entitled to take given the nature of the referral it received. Most of the outcomes Mr X is seeking could only be delivered by a court, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to consider data matters. We also lack powers to recommend disciplinary action against staff. Matters dating back significantly more than 12 months are also late, and Mr X could have complained about these earlier matters sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council used child protection as a punitive measure and failed to meet its duties by refusing all requests for support. Among other matters, he also complained of data failings by the Council, disability discrimination, and failing to address the needs of his children.
2. He said there have been serious effects on his family over a period of five years, in terms of health and other serious consequences.

Mr X wanted the Council to pay compensation for loss of earnings and the effect on his life expectancy. He also wanted staff to be disciplined, and a child protection conference to be re-run.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The events that lie behind this complaint are serious in nature. I note at the outset that the initial child protection conference (ICPC) record stated that Mr X and his partner had taken all reasonable steps to protect their children. Given the referral the Council received, the ICPC’s unanimous decision to make the children subject to child protection plans was one that lay within the range open to it. Were we to investigate that, we would not be likely find that procedural matters such as the late production of reports mean the ICPC would otherwise have reached a different view. Given the comments about Mr X and his partner in the ICPC record, we would be unlikely to find the decision was motivated by a punitive intent.
9. The implication of Mr X’s complaint is that events would have turned out differently if the Council had acted in a different way previously. However, our remit is narrow. Given the nature of what happened, and even if all the events were more recent, we could not reach any view about culpability for what happened to Mr X’s children or his health, or find that one child’s actions were the direct result of failings by the Council. We could not make a recommendation about the payment of compensation for damages. Nor could we reach any robust view about disability discrimination. These are all matters only a court could decide. We also lack powers to make any disciplinary recommendation, and Mr X has a right to approach Social Work England it would be reasonable to use if he wishes to pursue an allegation of professional misconduct. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider data matters. This is because it has powers to determine if breaches have occurred, and to impose penalties. We lack those powers.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in deciding the family’s children should be subject to child protection plans;
• Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to the outcomes Mr X is seeking, or to a significantly different outcome;
• Only a court could deliver the outcomes Mr X is seeking in terms of compensation and findings of damages and disability discrimination, so it would be reasonable to take the matter to court;
• The ICO is better placed than us to consider data matters; and
• Matters going back significantly more than 12 months are late and Mr X could have complained to us sooner about them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman