Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal with his complaint about social care failings affecting his family. These matters are historic and have already been considered in a previous investigation. There is no reason to exercise discretion to consider them. We have no discretion to consider Mr X’s most recent complaint to the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about failings by children’s social care staff that he says put his children at risk. He also complains about a lack of support from the Council when the children returned to his care. He says the Council has frustrated his attempts to complain.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated whether there are grounds to exercise the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider these matters, which are historic, and which we have previously investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I read the materials he sent me and a previous decision in case 16 000 759 about these matters. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. I considered those I received and asked the Council for copies of its correspondence with Mr X from April to November 2016.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X regained care of his children in 2013. In case 16 000 759 we found he complained to the Council in 2014, but that it failed to respond. We found he had contacted us in April 2016, and we decided the Council should respond. He contacted us again in November 2016. Our investigation found Mr X had not engaged with the Council after it asked him to confirm if his complaint was the same as his solicitor made in 2014. We did not find the Council at fault.
9. In 2018, the Council decided to deal with a complaint by Mr X. It wrote to Mr X, explaining that it had done so because the allegations he made were of contempt of court, malfeasance, perjury and gross misconduct. These are either personnel matter or matters for a court, not the Ombudsman.
10. I have seen no new information that suggests the finding of investigation 16 000 759 was wrong. Instead, the Council supplied the same correspondence, which confirms Mr X disengaged from the complaints process in 2016. None of the correspondence involving his MP that Mr X has supplied affects this finding of investigation 16 000 759. There is therefore no reason to re-open the historic matters complained of in that case. The grounds on which the Council considered Mr X’s complaint in 2018 are not ones where the Ombudsman has any jurisdiction to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have completed my investigation and closed the case as it is now clear the substantive matters complained of are either outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or have already been considered in a previous investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

12. I have not considered the substantive matters complained of as they are either outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or have already been considered in a previous investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman