Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. This is because there is insufficient fault causing a significant injustice, we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because other bodies are better placed to consider some elements of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. He says the Council failed to observe the children in his care, that communication with him was inadequate, inaccurate information was recorded, that the behaviour of an interviewer was inappropriate and that the Council committed a data breach. Mr X says the Council failed to provide him with a safe space to address his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)

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. The Council upheld some of the issues raised by Mr X in his complaint. It accepted that there had been errors in how it corresponded with Mr X regarding a meeting and that there were delays in updating notes from the meeting and that Mr X should have been told that he could bring someone for support. The Council agreed to add a note to assessment in regards to inaccuracies Mr X had highlighted. The Council raised these issues with the relevant team, agreed to add notes take by Mr X to the case file and agreed to take on board Mr X’s comments on the recording of meetings as part of an ongoing policy review.
8. I will not investigate the parts of Mr X’s complaint that the Council upheld. This is because the Council apologised to Mr X for these errors and the actions it has take to prevent them occurring again are proportionate and appropriate. Therefore, we could not add to the Council’s response by reinvestigating these points.
9. The Council said that it considered if it needed to carry out a specific visit to observe Mr X’s children in his care. However, due to other information gathered during its assessment it concluded this was not necessary. I will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the Councils’ decision because relevant information was considered by the Council before reaching its decision and therefore, we cannot question the merits of that decision.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council committed a data breach because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider such complaints. Likewise, Social Work England is better placed to consider any complaint Mr X has about the conduct of social workers involved in his family’s case.
11. Mr X says the Council didn’t allow him a safe space to express his concerns. However, the Council’s complaints process is the mechanism for expressing such concerns and it has responded fully to Mr X’s complaint and so there is no fault with the Council in this regard.
12. Finally, Mr X complains that communication with him about the matters raised has been poor. Whilst I acknowledge that poor communication can be frustrating, I do not consider that this in itself has caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice, we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because there are other bodies better placed to consider some matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman