Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a children’s safeguarding risk assessment. We are unlikely to find she has been caused a direct significant injustice by the assessment, and we are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply to her complaint about communication issues.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the compilation process of producing a risk assessment, the assessment conclusion and the communication with her.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (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 Mrs X and the Council’s replies to her, plus the risk assessment complained of.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says she has historically provided support for her grand children who have additional needs. Following her partners release from prison, the Council carried out a risk assessment. It concluded that Mrs X should not have unsupervised contact with her grand children. She says this is wrong. She says she cannot provide the support they need unless she is unsupervised. She says the Council’s communication around the assessment was poor. She says it cancelled meetings and did not return calls.
6. Mrs X’s partner is subject to prison release licence conditions and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order which restricts his contact with under 16s, a breach of which is a criminal offence. The Council’s risk assessment has no legal force. The grand children’s parents and the Courts are the only bodies able to prevent Mrs X’s contact with her grand children. Our investigation is unlikely to conclude that Mrs X has been caused any direct significant injustice by the risk assessment.
7. The Council’s response to Mrs X complaint included apologises for communication issues and explanations. Our investigation would be unlikely to achieve more. The risk assessment is a professional judgement. We are not a further appeal process for that judgement. The Council’s officers are entitled to reach professional views.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add significantly more to the Council reply to her complaint about communication issues. And we are unlikely to find that she has been caused significant direct injustice because of the Council’s risk assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman