Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family. He says the Council relied on historical allegations that had previously been disproven and wrongly initiated section 47 enquiries. He complains it produced biased reports that negatively affected his relationship with his child, Y. He also alleges the Council wrongly threatened to remove Child Y from his care. He complains it failed to properly address concerns he raised about a social worker’s conduct. He complains the Council failed to provide suitable counselling for Child Y. Mr X also complains it breached confidentiality by inappropriately sharing information.

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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• We cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• There is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Following a safeguarding concern, the Council held a multi-agency meeting involving social care, health, education and police representatives, which led to a section 47 enquiry and a child and family assessment. These resulted in a Child in Need plan and later a Child Protection Plan.
8. Mr X complains the Council relied on historic allegations to trigger an enquiry. The evidence reviewed does not show that historic allegations triggered the section 47 enquiries. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to the decision to start section 47 enquiries.
9. Mr X also complains the investigation reports were biased. The assessments were thorough and based on information from Child Y, Mr X and relevant professionals. Based on evidence seen, the reports do not appear biased; they present a balanced account of the concerns and include the views of both Mr X and Child Y, alongside those of other professionals. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council wrote the assessments and reports arising from the enquiry.
10. Mr X complains the Council threatened to remove Child Y from his care. The evidence reviewed does not support this. The Council explained the potential actions available to it, should concerns about Child Y’s safety remain, including the possibility of court proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council communicated the potential processes and outcomes. It was entitled to explain possible outcomes and what Mr X needed to do to avoid further action.
11. Mr X complains about the conduct of a social worker. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and recognised the language used by the social worker was not suitable. The Council has addressed this with the social worker and completed wider training within the Council. We cannot add anything further to this investigation, and cannot achieve the outcome wanted by Mr X.
12. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide suitable counselling for Child Y. From the evidence reviewed the Council worked with Mr X to identify a suitable counsellor and responded properly to the concerns he raised. When Mr X considered a proposed counsellor unsuitable, the Council took steps to identify alternative provision. Any additional delay was attributable to the Council's efforts to secure support that met Child Y's needs and addressed Mr X's concerns. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it provided counselling for Child Y.
13. Mr X complains the Council shared information inappropriately, which was a breach of confidentiality. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. If Mr X would like to complain about the Council’s handling of his data, it would be reasonable for him to raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman