Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of staff working on behalf of the Council when Mr X’s child was kicked by an older child who should not have been present. Investigation by us would not be likely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X said there was a serious safeguarding failure by the Council as a child who needed supervision was able to get into a different part of a building being used for activities during the summer school holidays and assault his child, who was much smaller. He said his child was left with a large bruise and had suffered disrupted sleep and anxiety, and that his wife had had to give up work to care for the child, causing a financial and emotional strain on the family. He wanted the Council to apologise, compensate him and give him a copy of the CCTV footage.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. At my request, the Council provided a copy in confidence of the safeguarding report after the incident. This concluded that a person unknown had left open a door that should have been closed in order to prevent two groups of children coming into contact. One group, including Mr X’s child, was of very young children. The other group was for older children with significant needs. The report found that the CCTV footage showed the larger child had been accompanied by two workers who had both received the correct training to support that child, and that they had acted to restrain the child on arrival at the premises. But the report found that the child had nonetheless managed to break free and had then been able to get into the part of the building where the young children were as a door had not been shut and locked. It stated that there was no CCTV footage available from the room where the incident happened. However, it is not in dispute that the child was able to push past the staff member who was with the young children and kick Mr X’s child in the back.
8. Were we to investigate, it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s own investigation. We could not ask the Council to release footage of the other child to Mr X. While he could complain about this to the Information Commissioner, the footage is in any case third-party data including the other child. And while we could ask the Council to apologise, Mr X wants the Council to provide compensation for the claimed psychological trauma and financial loss. We are not able to determine causal connections between actions and damages in that way, which is more suited to a court.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation, or to lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman