Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report. The law says we cannot investigate matters that have been considered by the Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a report the Council’s Children’s Service wrote for the Court. He said that resulted in him receiving a Court Order. He said the report contained factually inaccurate information. He said that had caused him severe distress. He wants the Council to compensate him for the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the report the Council provided to the Court. That is because the law says we cannot investigate what happens in Court. That includes the content of reports that social workers provide as part of court proceedings.
8. Mr X also made additional complaints to the Council about how it supported him as part of Child in Need arrangements. The Council considered that complaint through the children’s statutory complaints process.
9. The Council appointed an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence. The IO spoke to Mr X, interviewed relevant officers and reviewed case documents. They either made no finding on Mr X’s complaints or the complaints were not upheld. They set out their reasons why.
10. As Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, he asked for a stage three review by an independent panel. The panel reviewed the findings and found the stage two investigation was not flawed. It did not change the stage two findings. The Council considered the Panel’s findings; it sent a final adjudication letter to Mr X, explaining why it did not uphold his complaint. However, it accepted there had been a delay in the stage two response. It offered a financial remedy for any injustice caused by that delay.
11. Where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
12. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It offered a remedy in line with our guidance, for the delay in the stage two. Therefore, there is no outstanding injustice, therefore we will not investigate this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot consider matters that have been dealt with by the Courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman