Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about a child and family assessment following an allegation his mother harmed his daughter because we cannot achieve the outcome he is looking for. There are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns, and there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about a child and family assessment undertaken by the Council following an allegation his mother had harmed his daughter. He says the assessment was biased and superficial and the social worker falsified evidence. Mr F wants to set the record straight and clear his mother’s name.

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 do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the 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 Mr F and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr F’s mother allegedly harmed his daughter in April 2024.
6. Mr F’s ex-wife reported the matter to the Council in June 2024 and stopped Mr F seeing his daughter.
7. The Council held a family network meeting at the end of June 2024 and recommended contact with the paternal family should resume but Mr F’s mother should not be alone with his daughter.
8. The Council completed a child and family assessment on 23 July 2024 and decided there was no role for Children’s Services. The Council closed the case.
9. Mr F complained to the Council. The Council said it stood by the social worker’s judgement, but invited Mr F to use his “right to rectification” to correct any facts he could show were incorrect. The Council said it would record his views on his daughter’s file. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr F complained to us.
10. The Ombudsman does not investigate the allegation against Mr F’s mother. This is the Council’s job. I cannot ‘set the record straight’ or ‘clear Mr F’s mother’s name’. I cannot achieve the outcome Mr F is looking for.
11. There are other bodies better placed to consider Mr F’s concerns.
12. The Council invited Mr F to use his “right to rectification” to correct any facts he could show were incorrect. This is a formal right set out in the General Data Protection Regulations. Mr F could use this right. If the Council does not agree to his request, he could consult the Information Commissioner’s Office.
13. Mr F alleges the social worker was biased and falsified evidence. These are matters Mr F could raise with Social Work England, the regulator for social workers.
14. The Council completed the assessment and ended its involvement in less than eight weeks. The Council proposed – and all parties agreed to – supervised contact between Mr F’s mother and his daughter until it completed the assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice here to justify investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he is looking for, there are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns, and there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman