Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Manchester City Council (20 011 936)

Category : Children's care services > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 22 Mar 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council officer making a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr X said a Council officer wrongly reported a safeguarding matter without asking questions first. He said he and his partner were put under severe stress until the Council decided there was no reason for concern.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I gave him an opportunity to comment on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. A Council officer was working with Mr X and his partner when they had a baby. She made a safeguarding referral and the Council considered it, deciding there was no reason for any further action.
  2. The Council has safeguarding responsibility for children under 18. The Children Act 1989 says the threshold for making a safeguarding referral is when a person has reason to suspect a child is at risk of significant harm. It is not the person’s role to investigate the matter; the suspicion is enough. That is a low threshold, based on the premise that the need to protect children outweighs the likelihood that innocent persons will have their actions investigated. While the age of consent is 16, and many relationships with older partners are of no concern, others can involve exploitation of a vulnerable child. Where a partner is significantly older, there can be concern. Research has suggested the trigger point for concern is often when the age gap is four to six years. The Council’s policy regards the trigger point for concern to be five years.
  3. Mr X’s partner was under 18. Mr X was over 30. I understand that he found the days before the Council confirmed it had no further concerns distressing and felt he was being wrongly accused of grooming. But there was no fault in the Council officer finding the age gap to be of concern and making the safeguarding referral without attempting to investigate first.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page