Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the actions of the Council’s children’s services department. Mr X said the Council:
1. told his ex-partner to restrict contact with him and his child, Y, despite a court order from late 2023 allowing him unsupervised contact;
2. informed Y’s school not to allow Mr X to attend school events;
3. relied on outdated information when considering his suitability to have contact with Y; and
4. failed to respond to his complaints.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration, distress, and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

8. Mr X has a child, Y. In late 2023 private court proceedings concluded about where and with whom Y would live and their contact arrangements with each of their parents.
9. Mr X said a court order enabled him to have supervised contact with Y, later progressing to unsupervised contact.
10. The Council was not involved in the late 2023 private proceedings. After the proceedings, CAFCASS contacted the Council to provide information about the outcome of the proceedings.
11. Mr X complained the Council told his ex-partner and the school to restrict his contact.

Council’s contact with Mr X’s ex-partner

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication with his ex-partner regarding his contact with his child or his assertion that the Council told his ex-partner to restrict his contact.
13. In its complaint response the Council told Mr X it was not involved with the care arrangements for his child. It told Mr X it wrote to his ex-partner to explain a summary of the information it received from CAFCASS. It was not the decision of the Council to restrict Mr X’s contact. It was open to Mr X to take the matter to court to enforce the court order if he believed the contact arrangements were not being adhered to.
14. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome.

Contact with Y’s school

15. Mr X said the Council told Y’s school not to allow him to attend events. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X it did not instruct the school to restrict his attendance but had likely shared safeguarding information. It said it was for the school to determine its own safeguarding arrangements.
16. We cannot investigate this complaint because it relates to the internal management of the school. If Mr X’s attendance at the school was restricted, this was a decision for the school and was not a matter for the Council. The law says we cannot investigate what happens in schools including any restrictions placed on Mr X’s attendance by the school.
17. We will not investigate the information shared by the Council to the school because the consequence of any shared information was that the school restricted Mr X’s attendance which we cannot investigate as explained at point 17. Therefore, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome.

Mr X’s historic convictions being used as a reason to deny contact

18. The Council did not complete an assessment of Y. The Council told Mr X in its complaint response if it did complete an assessment, it would need to consider the family’s full history.
19. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s response to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not do so.

Poor communication

20. In its complaint responses the Council apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman