Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to limit his contact with his partner’s children. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of the Council. He says they:
• wrongfully restricted his contact between his partner and her children;
• delayed its risk assessment of him;
• were unprofessional towards his partner and her children; and
• failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities.
2. He says the Council’s actions have seriously disrupted his personal and family life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Government Guidance on Working together to Safeguard Children 2023.

Back to top

My assessment

Risk assessment

7. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
8. The Council identified Mr X as a person who may pose a risk to children due to his previous offending behaviour and allegations. When someone who may pose a risk to children has regular contact with children they do not have parental responsibility of, the Council must assess them to evaluate risk and decide what action to take to keep children safe. This includes deciding whether to restrict the person’s contact with children.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council gathered information from Mr X and other relevant people and agencies as part of its risk assessment. Based on the evidence it gathered, the Council decided Mr X’s contact with his partner’s children should be supervised because it identified some vulnerabilities that needed ongoing review.
10. I am satisfied the Council has followed proper processes in its risk assessment of Mr X and it was entitled to recommend supervised contact. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating. It is not our role to question the social worker’s professional judgement where it has followed proper processes.

Council conduct towards partner and her children

11. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions towards Mr X’s partner or her children. Mr X’s partner would need to raise this as a complaint in her own right, and Mr X does not have parental responsibility of the children.

Delay in assessment

12. Whilst there was some delay in the Council completing its risk assessment, now it has completed the assessment I do not consider that further investigation by us would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Reasonable adjustments

13. The Councils says it was not aware Mr X had asked for reasonable adjustments. However, the evidence I have seen shows the Council corresponded with Mr X in writing throughout the complaints process, which he has stated is his preferred method of contact. Therefore, I am satisfied there is not enough evidence of fault to suggest the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or any worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman