Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s conduct as Social Work England is better placed. And we are unlikely to find significant fault in his other allegations about a hospital discharge meeting.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about children services’ involvement in meetings about their child.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation (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’s replies to him.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following the birth of his child, Y, the hospital referred the family to the Council’s children services team for help and support. The Council says an officer met with Mr X and then days later held a discharge meeting. Mr X complained. He says:
• The meetings had not been properly recorded or a record sent to him.
• The discharge meeting was 30 minutes late starting.
• The children services officer chairing the discharge meeting interrupted them, gave inappropriate medical advice, pressured him into making a decision, lacked impartiality and respect.
6. Mr X wants disciplinary action taken against the officer, the full meeting recordings, an apology and a full internal investigation.
7. The Council’s replies to his complaint included:
• A note of the discharge meeting had been sent to Mr X within days and the meeting had not been recorded audibly.
• It accepted the meeting started late and apologised.
• A complaints’ officer had spoken to those at the discharge meeting for their views on the officer’s conduct and denied all claims against them.

Analysis

8. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to report his concerns to the professional body, Social Work England, about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker. They are better placed to consider his allegations against that officer.
9. We are unlikely to find any significant fault in the allegations of a late meeting start and short delay in sending a note of a meeting, or not audibly recording a meeting.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Social Work England are better placed. And we are unlikely to find significant fault in the other parts of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman