Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. In any case, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns during closely linked court proceedings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions during involvement with his family.
2. Mr X said the Council spoke to his child (Y) about a concern it had without telling him first.
3. Mr X said the Council’s actions have left Y open to continued harm.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained about the actions of the Council during its involvement with his family. Mr X specifically said it acted with bias, did not properly consider concerns raised by him and did not take all his information into account.
9. Mr X also complained about the Council’s actions after it received a referral in April 2025. Mr X said it spoke to Y without telling him and delayed telling him about the referral.
10. Based on the available information, I cannot see any evidence of bias in the Council’s actions. Additionally, the Council said it had responded to all concerns raised by Mr X. Also, where it said some of Mr X’s information could not be located, it asked Mr X to provide this again.
11. In relation to the referral received in April 2025, the Council explained to Mr X how statutory guidance allowed them to speak with Y due to the nature of the concerns. This position is supported by the available evidence.
12. Additionally, it told Mr X why it delayed in speaking with him about the referral. This was because of the availability of other professionals.
13. I do not consider there enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. For this reason, we will not investigate this complaint.
14. Mr X said he was concerned the Council’s actions affected his position in court proceedings. We will not consider this aspect of his complaint. As outlined in paragraph five, we can decide not to investigate where someone has an opportunity to mention concerns in closely linked court proceedings. The Council told us family court proceedings were scheduled in October 2025 for Mr X’s family, and I consider he could have raised many of his concerns during these proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman