Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s interactions with his child. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X. Also, any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Social Services interviewed his child (Y) without his knowledge while Y was in their mother's care. Mr X says he shares parental responsibility for Y, and the Council should have told him. He says the Council has refused to explain why it interviewed Y. Mr X says this caused him frustration and upset because he was unable to support Y during the process. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and provide the information he requested.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council explained to Mr X a referral had been made about another child living at Y's mother's address. It said where one child in a household may be experiencing difficulties, this can affect other children living there. It therefore spoke to all children in the household, including Y, to identify whether they had any support needs.
6. The Council said it tried to contact Mr X, but the telephone number provided to it was wrong. It said it was not clear whether it went back to the referrer to advise the number was wrong. The Council accepted this was fault. It said it had set up improved processes and provided staff training to reduce the risk of similar issues occurring again. It accepted this did not address Mr X's concerns about how it handled the matter and it apologised.
7. The Council provided Mr X with details of when it had contact with Y. It said that, apart from the assessment, these contacts were generally limited to polite acknowledgements rather than any intervention. It also provided details of what it recorded during Y's assessment. The Council advised Mr X that if he wanted further information, he would need to contact its Freedom of Information team.
8. The Council failed to tell Mr X, who also held parental responsibility for Y, about its involvement. However, the Council has accepted fault, explained what happened, apologised to Mr X and identified service improvements, including staff training and changes to its processes. It has also provided Mr X with information about its contacts with Y and the content of Y's assessment.
9. While I recognise Mr X remains dissatisfied and feels he lost the opportunity to support Y, I do not consider a further investigation would achieve a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mr X. Given the steps taken by the Council, I consider any remaining injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X. Also, any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman