Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment by Children’s Social Care because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation, we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants, and there is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about an assessment undertaken by the Council following a safeguarding referral. Ms M believes the referral was malicious. She found the process traumatic. She is unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms M and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council conducted a ‘single assessment’ following a referral which raised concerns about Ms M’s child. I have not included the details here to ensure their anonymity. The Council recommended Ms M supervise contact between her child and another adult, but concluded there was no role for Children’s Services and closed the case.
6. Ms M is unhappy with the assessment. She explained in detail what she believes is wrong with the report. She wants the report changed to say there are no safeguarding concerns for children in her care, the requirement for supervised contact removed, and the report to say the referral was ‘malicious’.
7. I have considered Ms M’s comments carefully.
8. I find the report to be thoughtful and balanced. It does not take sides. It does not say that children are at risk in Ms M’s care. It does not require Ms M to supervise contact between her child and another adult.
9. The Council considered the referral objectively and on its merits. The fact Ms M believes it was made maliciously (that is, to cause her distress) is a matter between Ms M and the referrer, not the Council. The report makes measured recommendations which would avoid the possibility of future referrals.
10. We do not have the resources to investigate every complaint we receive. The law allows us to choose which complaints we investigate. Unfortunately, some people who complain to us will be disappointed.
11. We choose to investigate those complaints where we think our investigation will make a difference, both for the person making the complaint and for the public at large.
12. In this case, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigation by us. On the evidence I have seen, there is no fault in the Council’s response to the safeguarding referral. This means investigation by us is unlikely to lead to any improvements which will benefit the public at large. It would not be a good use of our limited resources.
13. Further, we could not achieve the outcome Ms M wants by investigating her complaint. We cannot tell the Council what to include in the report. That is for the Council to decide. And the Council did not require Ms M to supervise contact, it only recommended it.
14. There is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable from our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation, we could not achieve the outcome Ms M wants, and there is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman