Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a concern about a child’s welfare. This is because there is not enough fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling, as in isolation it did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not properly dealt with safeguarding concerns about his child, Y. He says the Council did not properly assess or respond to concerns, downgraded the matter, did not challenge false information and did not respond to his complaint properly. Mr X says this has had a significant impact on him and Y, and has caused stress, anxiety and ongoing risk. Mr X would like the Council to acknowledge fault, apologise and make service improvements.

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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council assessed concerns about Y, both initially and when the situation deteriorated. The Council considered completed relevant assessments, spoke to Y on several occasions in different settings, visited both of Y’s homes and gathered information from key professionals. It also considered historic concerns, Y’s progress at school, police involvement social care records, Y’s health needs and the concerns of both parents. It explained to Mr X why it made the decisions it did.
7. Mr X has also complained that the Council has not challenged false information provided by Y’s mother. It is not the Council’s role to challenge information provided by individuals. However, it explained to Mr X that it had considered the information provided by both him and Y’s mother, as well as historic records and previous allegations.
8. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it, unless there is evidence of fault. Here, the Council took both Y and Mr X’s individual circumstances into account and made a decision that was in line with its process and legislation. Therefore, we will not investigate these complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his complaint, as in isolation, this did not cause Mr X a level of injustice that would warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough fault to justify investigating and there is no injustice that would warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman