Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of Mr X complaints. This is because we will not investigate the substantive matters complained of to the Council. These substantive matters are ones where we could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, or Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use, or where another body is better placed than us to consider them.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to investigate three complaints. The substantive matters complained of to the Council concerned alleged bias against him in assessing his child and family, and the content of an assessment. It also concerned record-keeping and information-sharing, as well as delay in complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers
 

2. 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)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The matters Mr X complains of are late. However, we may consider a late complaint if we think there is a good reason. In this case, Mr X first complained to the Council in 2020, and contacted us due to difficulties in the complaint process. The Council issued its final response to the matters complained of recently. Therefore, I have exercised discretion to consider these late matters.
10. Delay in complaint handling by a council is something we usually only consider where we investigate the substantive matters complained of. As we will not investigate the substantive matters, for reasons given below, I do not propose remedy for the time taken by the Council to deal with Mr X’s complaint.
11. The complaint correspondence between Mr X and the Council at all stages of the statutory complaints process for children’s social care complaints refers to five substantive complaints and a sixth complaint about complaint handling. The Council upheld the sixth complaint about delay in complaint handling, and found it had not explained some of the substantive matters to Mr X as well as it could have done. However, the evidence in the correspondence concerning the remaining five substantive complaints does not warrant investigation by us.
12. The second and fifth complaints concerned the disclosure of information or documents to Mr X. The correspondence gave reasons why the Council had not disclosed what Mr X wanted. Such matters are ones the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) would be better placed than us to consider. This because it has powers to require disclosure that we do not have.
13. The first, third and fourth complaints concern the judgements made by social workers in assessing Mr X’s child. Mr X said a social worker was biased against him because it visited his former partner, but not him, and that she failed to include a comment she had made to him in a document. He also said the Council went back on a decision that his child should be designated as a child in need.
14. The complaint correspondence is detailed. It makes it clear that Mr X had concerns about his former partner’s care of their child after they separated, including but not limited to her religious beliefs. It states the social worker visited Mr X’s former partner because it was her parenting that was under investigation, not his. It also shows the Council stated it was concerned about what it felt was acrimony between the former partners and its effect on the child. The correspondence also states the care arrangements for the child between Mr X and his former partner were subject to a court order.
15. The correspondence makes it clear that the issue at the heart of the complaint is Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the professional judgement and decisions of the Council regarding the care of his child and the actions of his former partner. Investigation of the matters in Mr X’s substantive complaint would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome as we would be unlikely to recommend actions by the Council concerning his former partner in the care of their child. Insofar as the suitability of either partner to care for their child has not already been raised in court, it would be reasonable for Mr X to return to court if he wishes to alter the contact or residence arrangements. This is because only a court could vary these arrangements.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is another body better placed than us to consider data disclosure matters;
• We could not achieve the outcome Mr X was seeking from his substantive complaint to the Council;
• Mr X has a right to go to court regarding matters in the substantive complaint to the Council it would be reasonable to use; and
• It would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint procedure because we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman