Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s engagement with Mr X in matters relating to his children’s welfare. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains of bias by the Council and that it has not acted on his safeguarding concerns regarding his children. He also wants the Council to investigate his son’s allegations of domestic abuse by his mother. He says there are inaccuracies in reports and in a Safety Plan produced by the Council. Mr X says he has lost faith in the Council and feels distressed and traumatised.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X says the Council has not properly investigated his son’s allegations of abuse by his mother in September 2024. He wants it to investigate further. Mr X says his son has left the family home, but no contact restrictions have been put in place and his mother continues to contact him by phone. In response, the Council says it increased home visits and completed a safeguarding assessment.
7. Following allegations of domestic abuse made against Mr X in October 2024, Social Services asked him to leave the family home, and he was subject to contact restrictions with his children. Mr X says this is unfair and questions why he was asked to leave the family home and was subject to contact restrictions, but the children’s mother was not.
8. Mr X says the reports and Safety Plan produced by the Council are inaccurate and do not contain enough detail of his son’s allegations against the mother. He says the Safety Plan is weighted more heavily against him than it is the children’s mother and feels this is biased. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has amended the reports and written a revised Safety Plan. Mr X remains unhappy with the plan and wants the Council to rewrite it again.
9. Mr X also complains of poor communication by the Council throughout its engagement with him. He says it delayed holding a strategy meeting following his son’s disclosure of abuse, which left him feeling confused about what safeguarding actions were to be taken.
10. The Council held an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in November 2024, a multi-agency meeting, which decided to place Mr X’s children on Child in Need plans. Mr X says the Council did not share a report with him until the last minute which meant he did not have enough time to properly prepare for the meeting. He also says the Council did not clearly explain safeguarding decisions made by the ICPC so he felt confused about actions taken following the meeting.

My assessment

Contact restrictions and initial investigation

11. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
12. Even though Mr X strongly disagrees, the Council responded to Mr X’s son’s allegations of abuse appropriately. By increasing home visits and carrying out a safeguarding assessment, it has done what we would expect it to do and acted in line with its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in its actions to justify an investigation.
13. I understand Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s safeguarding decisions and with the contact restrictions it has put in place. It is not our role to decide whether Mr X or his children were subject to abuse by their mother and whether there was a consequent safeguarding risk to the children. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding what contact restrictions to impose. The Council says it spoke with various agencies and made frequent contact with the family network, including the children, to understand risks. It made a safeguarding assessment and subsequent decision based on evidence it had at the time, in conjunction with the Police. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it took the decision, so I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Poor communication and report inaccuracies

14. Although Mr X remains unhappy with the Safety Plan and feels it is biased against him, I cannot see enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. The Council held a safety planning meeting prior to writing the new Safety Plan, which Mr X attended, and I can see it has included detail about the allegations against the children’s mother. We could not tell the Council to rewrite the plan in the way Mr X wants it to be written. The Social Workers have written their revised plan on their understanding of the situation and safeguarding risks. The Council has also apologised for its initial errors and says Social Workers will now audit each other’s work. It is therefore difficult to say our further involvement would result in the outcome Mr X wants; the Council has responded appropriately to his concerns.
15. The Council acknowledges it should have held the strategy meeting following allegations of domestic abuse made by Mr X’s son sooner than it did. The Council says that, had this happened, earlier joint planning could have taken place between the Police and Children’s Services, and it therefore could have avoided any confusion for Mr X regarding safeguarding decisions it made. It has apologised and says that it will reflect on decision making around threshold and risk going forward and has used this as a learning point for its staff. It is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X, and I consider the Council’s response to be sufficient.
16. The Council also says the delay in the strategy meeting had no bearing on the outcome of the ICPC, and therefore no bearing on Mr X’s contact restrictions with his children or its safeguarding decisions. I cannot therefore see enough evidence of any injustice to Mr X as a consequence of this fault.
17. Underlying this complaint is Mr X’s wish to challenge his contact restrictions with his children. It would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the courts if he wishes to challenge contact restrictions with his children, as this is not something the Ombudsman can change.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing him injustice and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman