Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns for Ms Y’s child, Z. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complain that during the Council’s safeguarding enquiries the Council:
• Asked Mr X to leave the family home so another family member could temporarily move in.
• Contacted other family members without properly considering the family history and gave priority to their views.
• Did not invite Mr X to a key meeting and did not involve him in the decision-making.
2. Mr X and Ms Y also complain the Council did not grant his Subject Access Request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and Ms Y and the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. After Ms Y was admitted to hospital, the Council made safeguarding enquiries for Ms Y’s child, Z. During the enquiries, the social worker spoke to members of the extended family in addition to Mr X, Ms Y and Z.
8. Mr X and Ms Y complained the social worker proposed Mr X temporarily move out of the home so a different family member could move in to help look after Ms Y. The social worker suggested this proposal as part of her enquiries. As Ms Y and Mr X did not wish Mr X to move out of the family home, Mr X remained in the home. I do not consider there to be a significant remaining injustice.
9. Mr X and Ms Y complained the social worker contacted other family members without properly considering the family history and gave priority to their views, over Mr X’s views, and the views of Ms Y and Z. The social worker contacted relevant family members and recorded their different views in her reports as part of her enquiries. The social workers’ interpretations were based on her assessment of the situation and were, therefore, professional judgement. There is no evidence priority was given to the views of the wider family over Z, Ms Y and Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in obtaining the views of Z’s wider family.
10. Mr X and Ms Y also complained the social worker did not invite Mr X to a key meeting and did not involve him in the decision-making. The Council accept Mr X was not invited to a meeting and has apologised. Mr X’s views are expressed in the social workers’ reports, so I do not consider there to be a significant remaining injustice.
11. Part of Mr X’s and Ms Y’s complaint is about the Council’s failure to fully respond to his information requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. In the absence of a wider complaint within our remit, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns for Ms Y’s child, Z. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman