Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children services involvement with Mr X because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council incorrectly removed his child from his care. He said the Council’s actions have been intrusive and unjustified and this has had a negative impact on his mental health. He would like the Council to provide him with a copy of a report he requested.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council was unjustified in removing his child from his care.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure. I note Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. However, unless we identify fault in how the Council carried out the stage two investigation or stage three panel, we will not reinvestigate the substantive matters.
8. The stage 2 investigation found the Council could have improved how it communicated with Mr X and recommended the Council provide him with an apology. The Council apologised to Mr X within its stage 2 complaint adjudication letter in January 2025.
9. The stage 2 investigation also recommended that any factual errors within an assessment report were amended. In January 2025, the Council asked Mr X to put any factual errors in writing, and it would ensure corrections were made. In response to enquiries, the Council confirmed Mr X had not identified any factual errors within the report.
10. The stage 3 panel supported the findings of the stage 2 investigation.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The Council followed the correct procedure when it carried out the stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel. The Council apologised to Mr X for how it communicated with him and asked him to identify factual errors for correction within a report.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman