Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of the Council’s assessment about his children. This is because our intervention would achieve nothing significant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council recorded inaccurate information about him and his wife in his children’s assessments. He has been denied access to his children because of this. He wants the inaccuracies in the reports and the Social Worker’s bias against him investigated. He wants accountability and corrective action.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints about the content of its assessment of his children and the conduct of the allocated Social Worker. The Council has also met with Mr X to discuss his complaints in detail. It has explained the reasons for recording the information it has and its rationale for not reallocating his children’s case to another Social Worker. The Council has recently advised Mr X its case for his children is closed as they no longer live in the Council’s area and no longer have contact with him.
6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve anything significant. It would not be for us to comment on the disputed contents of the report where this reflects the professional judgement of Council Officers. The most we would normally seek where the accuracy is disputed is for a record of a complainant’s dissenting views to be added to the file. Mr X’s views are set out in the complaint correspondence retained by the Council, so this has already been achieved.
7. If Mr X believes the assessment contains false information about him, he may wish to pursue his right to rectification under General Data Protection Regulations. It is open to him to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed than us to consider such matters.
8. The Council advised Mr X to seek independent legal advice and apply to court if he wishes to reestablish contact with his children. Like the Council, we have no power to intervene or make decisions in place of the court on such matters. Only the court can decide what is in a child’s best interest and on any matters of dispute, including contact arrangements.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s responses or achieve the outcomes wanted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman