Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a mistaken visit by children’s social services. The Council has accepted it went to the wrong address; it has apologised and offered payment of £250 to recognise Mr B’s distress. We are satisfied this is an appropriate action in response and we would not achieve anything further by investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B says a social worker came to his house and said they were taking his baby. The social worker did not identify themselves or give the name of the child. Mr B said they were wrong, the social worker then confirmed they were at the wrong address. Mr B has anxiety, and this incident has left him constantly scared, anxious, and having panic attacks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council accepts its social worker made a mistake and went to the wrong address. The Council also accepts the social worker should have given their name and identified the child by a name on arrival at the property.
8. The Council has apologised to Mr B for its errors and for the worry and upset it caused him; it has offered a payment of £250 in acknowledgement of the impact. The Council has spoken with the relevant team to highlight the errors made and prevent recurrence.
9. I recognise the unexpected and wrong visit by the Council, to take away a child, would be extremely distressing. The Council’s errors have worsened Mr B’s anxiety.
10. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies, and we would not recommend more than £250 if we investigated. Any financial recommendation is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic rather than purely financial.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because I am satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and proposed to take. The Ombudsman would not add to the Council’s investigation and an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman