Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of the Council’s Children’s Social Services. This is because some of her complaint is late with no good reason to investigate now. On the parts that are not late, the law prevents us from investigating matters connected with court proceedings.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the conduct of the Council’s Children’s Social Care Services. She says the Council:
• has mishandled her case since 2019;
• excluded her from the statutory processes, resulting in decisions being made without her involvement;
• coerced the other parent into initiating court proceedings;
• was biased and misrepresented a court report;
• harassed her after the court proceedings and shared false safeguarding allegations about her with the other parent; and
• mishandled her subject access request.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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)
7. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Ms X.
9. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Ms X complains about events dating back to 2019. Matters before September 2024 are late because they took place more than 12 months before Ms X complained to us. If she was unhappy with the Council's actions at the time, it was reasonable to expect her to complain to us then. I have seen no good reason for the delay in complaining. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of her complaint.

Exclusion from the statutory process

11. Ms X says the Council excluded her from meetings about her child and made decisions without her involvement.
12. The evidence I have seen shows the Council explained why it decided to hold a meeting without Ms X present, to ensure it met statutory timescales. I consider those reasons to be appropriate. It also took steps to ensure her views were shared at the meeting and explained she could raise any concerns at later meetings. On another occasion, Ms X was able to join via a speakerphone. Ms X’s absence from the meetings did not significantly disadvantage her or cause her a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.

Initiation of court proceedings

13. We cannot investigate the start of court proceedings. In any event, the proceedings were initiated by the other parent rather than the Council, and we cannot investigate the actions of private individuals. Any concerns about the reasons for, or circumstances surrounding, the court proceedings could have been raised during the court proceedings.

Court report

14. The law prevents us from investigating the contents and preparation of court reports. This means we cannot investigate any allegations of bias, unprofessional behaviour or factual inaccuracies in preparing the report. It was reasonable for Ms X to raise any concerns about this during the court proceedings.

Conduct after proceedings

15. Ms X says the Council harassed her after the court proceedings and shared false safeguarding allegations about her with the other parent.
16. The Council considered this matter through its complaints procedure. It explained the information was shared as part of its safeguarding responsibilities. It accepted it had not accurately recorded its reasons for sharing the information and identified learning to improve its recording.
17. The Council has already considered this complaint and identified areas for improvement in its record keeping. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve anything more or add to the Council's investigation.

Subject access request

18. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about access to information. Ms X has already complained to the Information Commissioner about this and received an outcome. There are therefore no good reasons for us to also investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint. Some parts of the complaint are late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. The law prevents us from investigating the matters connected with the court proceedings. On the remaining issues, the injustice is not significant enough and investigation by us would not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman