Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his children. This is because we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
1. The Council told his wife the children would be removed from her care if she allowed him to see the children. He says he was effectively banned from seeing his children for six weeks.
2. The Council breached statutory guidance by failing to provide the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) report two to three working days in advance. He says this denied him a fair opportunity to prepare for and take part effectively in the conference.
3. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) gave inaccurate information to the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA), alleging that he failed to provide details of his employer. He says this resulted in him losing his job in teaching.
2. He says the situation has affected his mental health, caused him financial hardship due to the loss of employment and caused emotional distress due to not seeing his children for six weeks. He wants the Council to issue an apology, provide compensation, retract any false information and review its procedures.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Part a of Mr X’s complaint. The Council says it agreed that Mr X could see his children at his parents’ home, with his mother supervising the visits. It explained it did not find it suitable for Mr X to see the children at the family home considering the risks it identified. It says it tried to carry out a risk assessment with Mr X to see if unsupervised contact could be allowed, but he did not take part in this process. There is no evidence the Council told Mr X he could not see his children. The Council based its decision on multiagency reports and risk assessments, so we are unlikely to find fault in its actions.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. Part b of Mr X’s complaint. The Council says it gave Mr X the opportunity to get a copy of the report before the conference, but he did not engage. On the day of the conference, the chair offered to postpone it because Mr X had not received the report. However, Mr X chose to proceed. He was given the opportunity to review the report and ask questions before the conference began. There is no set statutory timescale for sharing the ICPC report with parents prior to the initial conference, and the Council acted in line with its policy. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
10. Part c of Mr X’s complaint. The Council explained to Mr X the decision was not based solely on the alleged failure to provide employer details but was a multi-agency decision. The LADO shared the details of its referral with the TRA. Any action taken was a matter for the TRA.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman