Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries regarding his child, Y. This is because the Council apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries regarding his child, Y. Mr X also complained about the Council’s complaint process.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and distress.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

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

Background

6. In early 2024 the Council received a safeguarding referral regarding Y. It held a strategy discussion meeting and decided to conduct a section 47 enquiry. It spoke with Mr X, visited Y at school, and later visited Mr X and Y at the family home.
7. The Council ended its involvement following a child and family assessment.

Complaint

8. Mr X wrote to the Council and complained:
1. it had visited Y in school without his permission;
2. it had accessed Y’s health and school records without permission; and
3. about the conduct of social workers.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns but decided not to proceed with a formal complaint response. It told Mr X:
1. the threshold for investigating significant risk of harm to a child is low;
2. it did not need Mr X’s consent to see Y because it undertook its investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1989; and
3. said the social worker had followed the correct process.
10. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and made a further complaint.
11. The Council spoke with Mr X by phone and then wrote to him in January 2025:
1. it explained it obtained school information during the strategy meeting. It said it acknowledged it should have spoken to Mr X about the strategy discussion and apologised;
2. it agreed it should have sought his permission before seeing Y at school. It apologised for any distress this caused;
3. acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about the social worker’s comments and how this may have affected him. It apologised for any distress caused.

Analysis

12. We will not investigate this complaint. In its response to Mr X the Council apologised for not informing him about the strategy discussion, not asking for his permission to see Y, and for any distress caused by the social worker’s conduct.
13. Because the Council has apologised for the distress caused, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome, and so we will not investigate this complaint.
14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his complaint. This is because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman