Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the complainant’s children’s social worker. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council’s social worker has refused to continue with an assessment to enable his son to live with him based on false information, has failed to provide agreed therapy, and has manipulated his son against him.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s children are looked after by the Council and are currently in foster care. The evidence he has provided shows that the Council was undertaking a Placement and Parenting Assessment, with a view to one of his sons coming to live with him. The Council has decided not to proceed with the assessment.
6. Mr X says the reasons he has been given for the decision are false. He believes his son’s social worker has manipulated his son against him and falsely claimed the foster carer had complained about him. He further complains that the social worker failed to secure agreed therapy for him. In settlement of his complaint, Mr X wants the children’s social worker replaced.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking. It is for the Council to decide how to allocate cases to its officers and the Ombudsman cannot ask for a specific social worker to be removed.
8. Mr X disagrees with the decision not to continue with the assessment but that is not, in itself, grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene. Whether or not the foster carer expressed the opinions attributed to them, the reasons the Council has given for its decision not to continue are defensible. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise it, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. If Mr X believes the children should be placed with him, his recourse is to ask the courts to do so.
9. Regarding the therapy, the Council has apologised and set out a reasonable way forward. There are therefore insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to pursue the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman