Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr Y’s child because it is unlikely that we would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said, and we cannot deliver the outcome that Mr Y is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained that social work involvement with his child led to him needing to apply to the court to arrange contact. Mr Y says that this caused him considerable expense for which he wishes to be compensated. Mr Y also complained that the Council has refused to provide him with unredacted documents that he says he needs to pursue compensation.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y complained to the Council in early 2024 and it considered his complaint at all three stages of the Children’s statutory complaint procedure.
6. The Council upheld Mr Y’s complaints and offered a remedy for his injustice. It also apologised and agreed to carry out the recommendations at stage two of its complaints procedure. This included sharing learning with relevant staff and sending Mr Y redacted copies of minutes.
7. At stage three of its complaints procedure, the Council highlighted and signposted the process for how Mr Y could propose corrections to records.
8. It is unlikely we would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If we were to investigate, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a different outcome for Mr Y. This means it would not be a proportionate to investigate.
9. In any case, Mr Y is seeking compensation and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking, only the courts can award compensation.
10. Finally, Mr Y was unhappy the Council has not provided unredacted information to him. We normally expect someone to complain 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. Given the nature of Mr Y’s complaint, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the appropriateness of redactions to documents, and it would be reasonable for Mr Y to approach them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, and there is another body better placed to consider part of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman