Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after it received a safeguarding referral. Social Work England and the Information Commissioner are better placed to consider most of Miss Z’s complaint. For the rest, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss Z seeks so there is no worthwhile outcome from us investigating further.

The complaint

1. Miss Z complained the social worker did not carry out a child protection investigation properly. Miss Z said this included poor communication, failed to arrange a multi-agency meeting and recorded inaccurate information.
2. Miss Z said this led to an unnecessary court case with her ex-partner and caused her distress.
3. Miss Z wants the Council to compensate her, apologise and review its procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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))

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss Z.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council called a multi-agency strategy meeting after it received information from other agencies that suggested Miss Z’s children were at risk of significant harm.
9. The strategy meeting result was for the Council to start Section 47 (Children Act 1989) Enquiries to find out if the children were at risk of significant harm.
10. Miss Z complained to the Council about how the child protection investigation was carried out, with a focus on the conduct of the social worker and the accuracy of information the Council had recorded.
11. The Council considered Miss Z’s complaint under its two-stage complaints procedure. Most of the complaint was upheld. The Council offered Miss Z an apology and identified learning to improve its services. There is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by investigating further.
12. We also cannot achieve the outcomes that Miss Z wants. The Council has already offered her an apology, agreed to review procedures and offered guidance to social workers. We cannot award Miss Z compensation; only a court can do this.
13. We will not investigate Miss Z’s complaint about the conduct of a social worker. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England. This applies here.
14. We will also not investigate Miss Z complaint about data accuracy. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this part of the complaint, and it is reasonable for Miss Z to complain them.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Z’s complaint because Social Work England and the Information Commissioner are better placed to consider most of it. For the rest, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss Z seeks so there is no worthwhile outcome from us investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman