Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled an urgent child protection matter, particularly the actions of two social workers. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s previous investigation, nor can he achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to a child protection matter he raised. In particular, he says the social workers involved took too long to see him, did not accompany him to a police interview and told him that completion of an assessment was not a priority.
2. Mr X says this cause great frustration and does not want other young people to have the same experience. He says they Council should take disciplinary action against the social workers involved and provide a better apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information supplied by Mr X and the Council. Mr X was given an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I reached my final decision. No comments were received by him.

Back to top

What I found

6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about Children’s Services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

7. Mr X made a disclosure to his youth support worker about a family member. The support worker made an emergency referral to the Council’s social services department.
8. Mr X complained about how the Council handled the matter. His complaint was considered under the Council’s three stage complains procedure, in line with the statutory process described above. The majority of his complaint was upheld. The Council apologised to Mr X and made a number of service improvement recommendations.
9. Three heads of complaint were not upheld. Mr X remained dissatisfied and brought the matter to the Ombudsman. These complaints are:

• After his disclosure to his youth worker Mr X says it took five hours for a social worker to come and see him. He says this was far too long and caused a great deal of anxiety at an already difficult time. His complaint was not upheld as the records showed it took approximately two hours that was considered reasonable in the circumstances. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X says the social worker apologised for the five hour delay and this is evidence that it was five hours and not two hours.
• The Council and the police then investigated the matter. During this process Mr X says the social worker told him that completion of the assessment “was not a priority”.
• He says his social worker promised to attend a police interview but did not do so.

Analysis

10. My role is to consider whether there was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s complaint. I am aware that Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of its consideration as it did not uphold every part of his complaint but it is not my role to consider whether its decision was right or wrong but to focus on whether it was reached properly and thoroughly. I have carefully considered the investigations of Mr X’s complaint, particularly at stages two and three of the process and I consider it was thorough and properly addressed the complaint that Mr X made.
11. In relation to his three outstanding complaints my findings are:

Length of time it took the social worker to attend

12. The Council did not uphold this complaint. As part of its investigation the independent person interviewed the youth service support worker and the team leader who were directly involved at the time of Mr X’s disclosure. The Council social worker answered questions by email and was interviewed over the phone. The case records were examined in which the social worker had recorded the times.

Social worker’s comment that completion of Mr X’s assessment “was not a priority”

13. Both the social worker and her manager were interviewed during the Council’s own investigation. The case records were also considered, including those of the youth service. While the latter recorded Mr X referring to the social worker’s remarks, this was not considered to be sufficient evidence upon which to make a finding. The stage three panel concluded that while they did not dispute Mr X’s view, there was insufficient evidence upon which to make a finding. I agree. The Ombudsman could not achieve anything more here as the Council’s investigation was thorough.

The social worker did not attend the police interview as promised

14. Mr X says this type of unfulfilled promise was particularly distressing because of his autism. The independent person interviewed the social worker who could not recall making such a promise. Her manager was also intervened who confirmed that there are sometimes operational difficulties about a particular social worker attending specific events. In this case the police changed the time of the interview and to avoid a delay a different social worker had to attend.
15. The stage three panel checked the youth service records and concluded that the Council was not at fault.
16. This aspect of the complaint relates to one person’s word against another. There is no independent witness. As I am unable to prefer one account over another, like the Council, I would be unable to make a finding on this part of the complaint.
17. I therefore do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate Mr X’s complaint further as it is unlikely we would be able to add anything to the Council’s previous investigation.

Conclusion

18. Mr X says one of his desired outcomes from making his complaint to the Ombudsman would be for the social worker to be told off and receive a final warning. The Ombudsman considers the Council’s actions as a whole, and does not recommend disciplinary action towards staff. An investigation by the Ombudsman would therefore not achieve what Mr X wants.
19. Mr X also wants the Council to prepare a long report about how sorry it is and a ten page apology letter to him. The Council has already apologised in writing to Mr X for the faults identified during its own investigations and prepared a detailed investigation report. The Ombudsman could add nothing further to this.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman cannot add anything to the Council’s own investigation and could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman