Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s child as part of a child protection plan. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve what Mr X is looking for.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the actions of a social worker, who was involved in directly supporting his child (A). He said their actions caused unnecessary disruption to A’s activities, was biased against him when taken with their involvement with A’s mother (T) and did not properly investigate allegations of harm to A that he raised.
2. Mr X said this caused him severe stress and he wants the Council to replace the social worker and review the biased reports.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

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. In January 2025, the Council allocated a social worker to support A as part of a child protection (CP) plan, it had earlier started. Mr X then raised several concerns with the Council about their involvement, saying it:
• Carried out unannounced visits on A causing disruption;
• was unbalanced in how it presented situations and was bias, and;
• did not take action relating to allegations of harm and how this occurred.
8. I have read the core group meeting notes, dated in January, February and July 2025, which have evidenced the Council was following a child protection plan. The notes show it was aware of previous involvement with Mr X’s family, took A’s views into account and took note of Mr X’s views. According to the evidence I have seen it followed up Mr X’s concerns about an injury A sustained, and how this occurred.
9. Based upon the available evidence, it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council supported A and included Mr X in that assessment as part of a CP plan.
10. Mr X also raised a complaint relating to a Council officer because they declined to replace the social worker when Mr X asked them to. Given the Council’s reply about why it decided this, it is unlikely we would find fault in that decision.
11. Additionally, we cannot achieve what Mr X is looking for, because we cannot ask the Council to replace a social worker. In any case, Mr X has indicated there will be family court proceedings in due course and it would be reasonable to expect him to raise any concerns about inaccuracies at court during these proceedings.
12. For these reasons above we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Nor will we investigate a complaint about complaint handling, because it is not a good use of public resources to look at complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve what he is looking for.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman