Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about how the Council responded to his safeguarding concerns and carried out a Child and Family Assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains about how the Council responded to his safeguarding concerns and carried out a Child and Family Assessment. He says the Council did not properly consider the evidence and its records contain inaccurate information which he is worried could affect his child’s welfare. Mr Z wants the Council to review its safeguarding processes and to correct the information.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
4. I have reviewed the Council’s complaint responses and its Child and Family Assessment for Mr Z’s child.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Z complains the Council has not properly considered or responded to his safeguarding concerns about his child. He says this raises concerns about how it handles safeguarding referrals from single fathers.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said that following his safeguarding referral, it had completed a Child and Family Assessment. It said it started the Assessment the same day as Mr Z’s referral and completed a home visit within a week. The Assessment outcome was a Child in Need plan which it finalised a month after Mr Z’s referral.
7. The Council said its review of the Assessment and case file found the Assessment had considered the relevant safeguarding matters and that Mr Z’s views were appropriately represented. It found no evidence Mr Z had been discriminated against as a single father. It said Mr Z should raise any new safeguarding concerns with his child’s current social worker.
8. We will not investigate this part of Mr Z’s complaint. The Council took appropriate action in response to Mr Z’s safeguarding concerns. Its Assessment includes several references to Mr Z’s views, including his concerns for his child. The Council appropriately considered the matters he raised and included Mr Z’s perspective in its Assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
9. Mr Z further complains the Council’s Child and Family Assessment records contain inaccurate information which the Council has refused to correct.
10. In its complaint responses, the Council accepted some of Mr Z’s complaint about factual inaccuracies. It said it had updated the Assessment with dated amendments to reflect this. The Council told Mr Z which of his alleged inaccuracies it did not accept and would not amend. It explained this was because these points were matters of professional opinion.
11. We will not investigate this part of Mr Z’s complaint because our involvement would not lead to a different outcome. Child and Family Assessments set out social workers’ professional opinions, and it is not for the Ombudsman to ask for them to be altered. The most the Ombudsman would seek to achieve in such cases is to add the complainant’s views or factual corrections to the council’s files. I have reviewed the Assessment and can see the Council has already done this and appropriately included Mr Z’s views, so there is nothing further the Ombudsman could achieve here.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely our investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman