Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. Some parts we have no power to investigate. There are other bodies better placed for other parts. And we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to make child protection enquiries.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about children services actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, Section 26, paragraph 2 as amended)
3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s response to his complaint.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. In March 2021, the Council says that following a school referral about Mr X’s grandchildren, it held a child protection strategy meeting. It decided to call an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). Before its planned date, Mr X’s daughter and grandchildren left the country and went to their European country of heritage.
11. Mr X says:
• The school fabricated the details of the referral.
• Council officers impersonated police officers.
• Council officers acted wrongly to him on the telephone and in person.
• The Council did not have enough evidence to make any enquiries or to call an Initial Child Protection Conference.
• The Council degraded his family by telling the country the children had moved to about their concerns.
• The Council holds inaccurate information about his family.
• The Council did not properly reply to his complaint and delayed in doing so.

Analysis

12. We cannot investigate the information the school gave to the Council as we do not have the power to do so.
13. We cannot investigate his allegation about officers impersonating the Police. This is a matter for the Police to consider as a potential crime.
14. We will not investigate his inaccurate records complaint. Mr X has the right to ask records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual faults are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
15. It would be difficult to investigate social workers professional actions or manner separately. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect him to report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.
16. We could not investigate those parts of his complaint which are about the child protection enquiries and action, and contacting another country, without the consent of person with parental responsibility for the children. However, even if we did have consent, we could still not investigate those complaints because:

Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. It has to do this when it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an ICPC. The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and setting up a safety plan.

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Some of it we have no power to investigate. There are other bodies better placed for other parts and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to make child protection enquiries.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman