Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding enquiry involving his child. We could not add to the investigation and response the Council has already provided to Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a child protection investigation involving his child. He alleges the Social Worker acted in a biased and corrupt way to manipulate information and breached his privacy. He believes the Council’s involvement has caused irreversible damage to his family.

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:

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Social Worker’s Manager met with Mr X and responded in writing to his complaints. They acknowledged there were times when the Social Worker’s interaction with Mr X was robust and caused distress. They also apologised when wording the Social Worker used in an assessment of Mr X’s family appeared biased. The Manager confirmed they would feedback to the Social Worker. They also confirmed they would report a disclosure of Mr X’s personal data to the Council’s Information Governance team for further action. The Manager concluded the Social Worker’s overall handling of Mr X’s case had been in line with statutory guidance. A multi-agency Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) had agreed the threshold for child protection enquiries had been met in this case. Mr X’s case has since been allocated to another team and social worker within the Council.
5. Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s actions but that does not mean they amount to fault. The Council has provided a detailed and thorough response to Mr X’s concerns and apologised where appropriate. Our investigation is not warranted because we could not add significantly if at all to the responses the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the response the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman