Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written by the Council and passed to Ofsted. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different or more worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a safeguarding investigation was carried out by a Council officer who was biased towards the school about which he had complained. He said the results of a subject access request he made showed the officer took the school’s comments over his and did not check back with him about the extent of his child’s distress caused by an unannounced home visit by a representative of the school. He wanted the report amended and another safeguarding officer appointed. He wanted Ofsted to know the truth about the school.

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 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The complaint concerns the actions of the Council in respect of its safeguarding duty, not the actions of the school. It is clear from the content of the Council’s final response to Mr X’s complaint, which he has provided, that it accepts his child was seriously distressed when a representative of the school came to the family home unannounced. It is also clear from what Mr X has sent us that the school made comments to the investigator with which he strongly disagrees. If we investigated, it is unlikely we would find that was bias, and that the Council should not have reported the school’s views as well as those of Mr X. We have already advised Mr X in case 23 019 094 that the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider matters of data accuracy. Essentially, Mr X is of the opinion that that the Council should have given more weight to his views than to the school’s views. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to that outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different, better, or more worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman