Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of a child protection enquiry relating to the complainant’s children, and in its response to her subsequent complaint. Our intervention would add nothing significant to the response the complainant has already received and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council was at fault in the course of a child protection enquiry, and failed to respond properly to her 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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Ms X’s family was the subject of a child protection enquiry under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Ms X complains about the actions of the social worker who carried out the enquiry. Specifically, she complains that her children were unlawfully removed from her, causing significant distress and trauma to them and to her. She further complains about the social worker’s conduct at the Initial Child Protection Conference, and about the standard of the assessment report he produced.
6. Ms X made a complaint to the Council which has completed its corporate complaints procedure. The Council found the evidence about the circumstances of the children’s removal to be inconclusive and made no finding on the matter. It partially upheld Ms X’s complaint about the standard of the assessment report and about the conduct of the social worker at the Initial Child Protection Conference. Other aspects of the complaint were not upheld.
7. Ms X is not satisfied with the outcome. She wants the matter reinvestigated, including formal interviews of participants and witnesses. She wants her complaint upheld in full, for the Council to acknowledge its fault and to make a formal apology.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is not likely we would add anything significant to the response she has received from the Council. The Council’s investigation appears to have been proportionate and the outcome defensible.
9. Given the contradictory nature of the evidence, the decision to regard the key complaint about the removal of the children as inconclusive is reasonable in the circumstances. Ms X disagrees, but that does not mean the Council’s view amounts to fault. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would face the same issue and we will not criticise the Council for deciding not to make a finding.
10. Ms X has already received apologies in respect of those aspects of the complaint where fault has been identified. Intervention to consider whether findings of partially upheld should be changed to fully upheld would not be a good use of our resources and is not justified.
11. If Ms X believes the Council’s assessment report contains false information about her or her children, she may pursue her legal right to rectification. There is no role for the Ombudsman. The most we would wish to see is that a record of her dissenting views is added to the Council’s records. Her views are clearly set out in her complaints, so this has already been achieved, and we would not seek anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the response she has already received from the Council;

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman