Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take safeguarding action in response to the complainant’s concerns about her son’s welfare. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council failed to take action in response to her safeguarding concerns about her son’s welfare.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Miss X’s son lives with his father under a child arrangement order made by the court. Miss X believes her son has suffered physical harm and educational neglect and remains at risk. She has reported her concerns to the Council and believes the combined risks to her son’s welfare warrant safeguarding action under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
6. Miss X says that in 2023 she reported an injury her son had suffered to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). She complains that the Council has relied on the fact that Cafcass did not make a safeguarding referral at the time as a reason not to take action on the matter. She also complains that the Council has failed to take proper account of what she regards as educational neglect, deferring to her son’s school to address the matter.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether the Council should initiate action under Section 47. That is a matter for the professional judgement of the Council’s officers. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council used its judgement.
8. The correspondence Miss X has provided shows that the Council has taken the view that the evidence does not meet the threshold for Section 47 safeguarding action. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s view, but that does not mean it amounts to fault. The Council has properly set out why it finds that the threshold is not met and that decision appears to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
9. Without evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision the Ombudsman cannot intervene to criticise the decision or substitute an alternative view. There is no such evidence, and we will not therefore investigate Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman